NOTE: If you are interested in the Oroville Dam disaster in California, I’ve been updating my earlier post about it below.

The funny thing is that, due to our pervasive mental atmosphere that makes noticing patterns disreputable, almost nobody has noticed how funny this phenomenon is: that there exists a rare form of mental illness that occasionally strikes highly masculine, higher IQ middle-aged men and convinces them that, despite all the evidence to the contrary (their children, their military or sporting accomplishments, their sci-fi obsessions, etc.) that they’ve always been a girl on the inside.

… And the victims of this delusion are almost all right-of-center in their political / cultural views!

I’m sure the Wachowski Siblings of “The Matrix” hold highly respectable political views on the surface, but it’s likely not a coincidence that their term “red pill” has become one of the most subversive of the 21st Century.

Being a conventional liberal goodthinker seems to confer some degree of immunity to the ravages of this mental health syndrome.

But leftists these days are too dumbed down to get the joke that late onset transgenderism is a mental illness of rightists.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Never made this connection before but damn, you’re right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing “traps” or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging…

You just blew my mind. You describe some of my experience better than I could have, actually.

I like a nice trap. Mostly that's about femininity—traps, being obsessive (ahem) about femininity, *perform* femininity better than most females.

It's also about comfort with submissiveness. I think most are also more appealingly submissive than most American females—closer to the norm I've experienced with some Latin American women. (#feminismiscancer)

But partly it's also what you identify:

In my interactions with the the handful of traps / mtf trans girls I've actually hung out with I've noticed myself thinking things like "this girl (sic? who knows anymore) is not only more alluringly feminine than most girls I've been with but she's also wicked smart and clever [in a way that I...perish the thought...would more commonly associate with males or tomboyish girls]".

I think you're on to something. (Or maybe I'm just a symptom of the generalized perversity of Weimar America).

Yes, there is a lot of sexual weirdness in the alt-right. I had never heard of traps until the rise of frog twitter and Milo made a video answering whether traps were gay.
What is a trap?
And is this such a big problem that guys are asking this?
And at least one person out there really didn't know the answer?

Then there are the trannie stars on frog twitter. The most popular seems to be young and gay, yet more of a masculine nerdy type.
(Similar to him, one of my followers, not a trannie, but masculine gay(?) type loves the rare occasion I tweet out pro-male stuff, like acknowledging some of their adorable peculiarities).

And then you have to be careful about who you follow because gay and she-male (also never heard of) porn, non-ironically, gets thrown into your timeline.

I'm just a nice, Christian mom, but, Lord have mercy, alt-right twitter has given me an education; I've been on the internet since 1999.

Finally, I did a lot of googling one day on what do liberal men think of xyz, and it's impossible to know: they just don't talk, or have strong feelings about, sexual stuff "as liberals". Every odd and peculiar sexual phenomenon you can think of: beta male rage (with their manifestos), incels, MGTOW, manosphere, PUA,trannies, traps, etc., is associated with the Right.
It's like rightist guys have something on their chests and they need to get it off, and at length, NOW.

I have no idea what you're talking about, because I don't follow the meme wars closely. But those things are usually started by internet-savvy, college-age peoples, whose minds are occupied by internet-y things. As you may have heard, pornography is big on the internet, and "traps" are a mainstay of internet porn. Either because the people consuming trap porn are actually gay, or because they like to feel ashamed of themselves, or maybe they just like feeling confused. I don't know.

Anyway, these alt-right meme warriors may have no personal interest in trap pornography whatsoever. It's something they're aware of, and it's not part of the mainstream of our culture. Normal people (or "normies," as they call them) are still uncomfortable with the subject. So alt-righters can use them to be "transgressive."

I wouldn't look any further into the subject, except to say that sexual deviance gets defined down, just like other forms of deviance. The alt-right is at least rhetorically more open to deviance than other groups, if not in actual interest. So it stands to reason that they'd sprinkle in sexual fetish references amongst the gas chamber references.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn’t have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary’s ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

Yea Jan Morris focused a lot of energy on the British empire via his/ her trilogy, but he was hardly Kiplingesque. Kiplingesque figures wouldn't have opposed the Suez Operation and the Falkland War. It's also notable that no one really knew Jenner was a republican until he transitioned because he just wasn't that vocal about politics. A lot of Steve's theorizing would have probally been better argued before the internet made access to information so easy and people would nod along to things like Jan Morris as Kiplingesque.

To understand homosexuality in the British Empire and their colonies, one must understand the British upper-class "public" school system that isolated the sexes from age 7 through their university years. It probably didn't help that upper-class British boys also wore dresses when toddlers.

In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, homosexuality was often called the "English disease". In spite of recurrent sex scandals involving pedophilia that continue to be shoved under the rug, nothing seems to have changed except that graduates of the British upper-class "public" school system can now cavort in public?

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of “right wing” politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don’t really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

—–

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

How is Ann Coulter a jerk? I just never thought that of her. She's smart, witty, and has a lawyer's attention to verbal details*. Sure, lots of people on the left and in the media (wait, that's total overlap) get cheesed off by the fact that she brings their hypocrisy and contradictions to light. A lot of people are really averse to that much truth - it doesn't make her a jerk.

Listen, Thursday, maybe Miss Coulter is not the jerk around here - the Jerk Store just texted and said they're runnin' out of YOU!

(OK, OK, I'm in love with her, that's really what this is about, sniff, sniff ....**)

* There are lots of jerks who end up as lawyers - it is a good fit, but Ann is part of the 1 % of the lawyers that are trying to give the others a good name.

The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

Ann Coulter isn't a jerk. She seems abrasive only because she actually appears in venues where she is hated and reviled. If YOU had to appear on Bill Maher's show with his audience of brain-washed dullards you'd seem abrasive too.

Media personalities generally tend to be jerks, whether on the right or left. You have to have a fairly narcissistic personality to keep pushing yourself on people, especially in the modern saturated environment where yelling louder and being more outrageous is the key to getting noticed.

Don’t forget “J.N.” Pritzker of the Pritzker Military Library. I don’t know what his politics were (being Jewish he might have leaned to the left), but strikes me as otherwise having a masculine personality type.

I think there’s something going on with the loss of testosterone due to old age. Maybe it gets disproportionately turned into estrogen? There are small amounts of estrogen in normal men, and it’s synthesized from testosterone (there’s an enzyme called aromatase that creates another aromatic ring). Maybe in a small subset it gets upregulated? My thought is these guys have a high baseline level of T, but for some reason when they get older a lot of it gets turned into estrogen instead.

Lynette Nusbacher is a military historian and lecturer at Sandhurst in England, used to be a man called Aryeh. He had a vogue 10 years ago on British TV, presenting Time Commanders, so I was shocked to find out about the change.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn't have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary's ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

Ah…yes….everyone was a flaming homosexual back in those days despite virtually zero evidence proving any of these pathetic rumors spewed by the gay lobby.

There was a lot of closeted homosexuality going on, particularly in all-male environment like boarding schools and the army. You may remember the stereotypes about sailors, and I'm sure a lot of guys who wouldn't otherwise have even thought about it decided to get a little guy action to pass the time...isolation does things to people. Heck, at the other end of the masculinity bell curve, look at incels and hentai.

Probably less than the modern gays finding it everywhere want to claim, but more than people at the times wanted to admit.

The idea that there is distinct 'gay'ness or even 'sexuality' is a 20th century one, a product of luxury really. Note how women in poor societies are restricted from most men without money. You took/take your pleasures where you could. Then you might get a taste for what you can afford. 'Homosexuals' as we now understand them were not the whole story nor were they 'illegal', because no such concept existed in law. Only homosexual acts were banned, a very different concept.

Then yes, isolation of boys in boarding schools, in my day 50 years I heard it was common to ask another boy to 'put out his legs' for you to copulate against, as a favour, cross his legs and you pretend it's a girl's vagina.

But Gandhi has written some very passionate homo-erotic letters to friends of his younger days. Whether it was fantasy, poetic license it does seem that he was at least what we now call 'bi' but in his culture that may have been more common than we might expect: I've studied Indian culture for 40 years and even been exposed to village boys having sex, who probably were not 'gay'. It's a shame all this can not be studied because of the fanatics of 'equality'. It's far more complex than anyone seems to realise.

Also, as an Aspergers myself, I believe most 'gays' are on the Autism Spectrum, so there's that!

So why would it by (presumably) high testosterone older men who are more likely to decide they are transgendered? Testosterone tends to fall in men as they age. Could a dramatic drop in testosterone levels cause that?

The well-known Pritzker family of Chicago has an heir (cousin of Penny Pritzker, former Commerce Sec’y), born James (1950), and known as Jennifer since 2013. Served 8 years active duty and 16 years Reserves in the US Army, retiring as LCOL.

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve’s point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

Everyone here's going to make cracks about cucks and beta males, so I'll just say: that sucks. I am very sorry for you. Having your spouse switch gender on you on top of the stress of divorce is incredibly surreal, bizarre, and dispiriting.

Interesting it was F to M, though; everyone else we've discussed is the other way around.

So here's another theory, which may or may not contradict the other one: conservatives are less into self-expression as a goal and more likely to put whatever weird feelings they have down and play their assigned social role. (I'm convinced General Mattis, for example, may be a gay man who decided to give up the possibility of gay life to serve his country as a military man--which he has done with honor and distinction.) Then, when you get past middle age, you've done all you can, so you figure, why not be me, nothing left to lose? The liberal did this 30 years ago.

BTW, people here are pretty 'xenophobic', anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don't even consider neocons conservatives.

>>>I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself.

No. Your ex-wife is not a man. Never was a man. Never will be a man. Is not on some "journey" to discover HER true self. Your ex-wife is a sick individual. Very sick. And slicing up her body, injecting herself with testosterone is not the correct treatment.

I think that if you love someone, you will always wish them the best. Good for you for supporting your wifes transition. Agree with SFG though, it must have been tough. Not sure if I would have been able to behave as ethically as you did. Anyone can get married, behaving well in a divorce is a real test of character.

Just to stir the pot, I seem to recollect that Hemingway had some feminine fantasies, expressed as a fascination for cross dressing and long, feminine hair, both high on his fetish list as letters reveal, Perhaps they made the earth for him. And didn’t one of his sons end up being a famous cross-dresser. well, way above my pay grade, I’m stuck down here among the proles with thoughts of long-stemmed Japanese gals in dark stockings and heels!

Don't forget "J.N." Pritzker of the Pritzker Military Library. I don't know what his politics were (being Jewish he might have leaned to the left), but strikes me as otherwise having a masculine personality type.

I think there's something going on with the loss of testosterone due to old age. Maybe it gets disproportionately turned into estrogen? There are small amounts of estrogen in normal men, and it's synthesized from testosterone (there's an enzyme called aromatase that creates another aromatic ring). Maybe in a small subset it gets upregulated? My thought is these guys have a high baseline level of T, but for some reason when they get older a lot of it gets turned into estrogen instead.

Lynette Nusbacher is a military historian and lecturer at Sandhurst in England, used to be a man called Aryeh. He had a vogue 10 years ago on British TV, presenting Time Commanders, so I was shocked to find out about the change.

The well-known Pritzker family of Chicago has an heir (cousin of Penny Pritzker, former Commerce Sec'y), born James (1950), and known as Jennifer since 2013. Served 8 years active duty and 16 years Reserves in the US Army, retiring as LCOL.

One of the first British Arabists developed this delusion in middle age. Can’t remember his name off the top of my head, but he was one of the only English scholars who knew Arabic back in the 17th century. He believed he was a reincarnated princess (or maybe a saint or goddess — something like that anyway).

Contemporary academics suggest he was insane, but if he were alive today I’m sure nobody in Oxford would dare question his claims.

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

I would not go as far as beautiful, but in parts of Asia they sometimes start budding trannies on megadoses of female hormones at age 12-14, so they grow real breasts and the rest of the face and body does not undergo masculinization during puberty.

During a one week research stay with the SFPD's homicide squad I commented to one of my hosts on how attractive the hookers in San Francisco were. He and his partner started laughing and told me the ones in the area of my hotel were all transvestites. The police regularly intervened in disputes between them and heterosexual clients who felt they'd been duped. Evidently these sometimes got quite ugly. BTW, I'm strictly heterosexual and am pretty discriminating about feminine pulchritude.

It’s funny that you mention this connection, as there’s a semi-serious meme on the alt-right that a lot of these anonymous women on alt-right sites and social media, especially those claiming to be “tradwives” i.e. traditional wives are actually right-wing dudes with a transgender fetish and get off on pretending to be women online.

I don't know why we have to add the Freudian twist. It's perfectly plausible that a lot of women on the internet are actually men, because men do that sort of thing. (So do women, for that matter, though they tend to stick to certain parts of the internet; they're not as adventurous, I find.) But why speculate on it being a "fetish?" Why say they "get off" in a sense different from how everyone else "gets off" by tricking people on the internet?

It's a very narrow, debased way to look at things. But our culture and our internet culture especially are sex-obsessed.

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

You just blew my mind. You describe some of my experience better than I could have, actually.

I like a nice trap. Mostly that’s about femininity—traps, being obsessive (ahem) about femininity, *perform* femininity better than most females.

It’s also about comfort with submissiveness. I think most are also more appealingly submissive than most American females—closer to the norm I’ve experienced with some Latin American women. (#feminismiscancer)

But partly it’s also what you identify:

In my interactions with the the handful of traps / mtf trans girls I’ve actually hung out with I’ve noticed myself thinking things like “this girl (sic? who knows anymore) is not only more alluringly feminine than most girls I’ve been with but she’s also wicked smart and clever [in a way that I...perish the thought...would more commonly associate with males or tomboyish girls]“.

I think you’re on to something. (Or maybe I’m just a symptom of the generalized perversity of Weimar America).

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

Everyone here’s going to make cracks about cucks and beta males, so I’ll just say: that sucks. I am very sorry for you. Having your spouse switch gender on you on top of the stress of divorce is incredibly surreal, bizarre, and dispiriting.

Interesting it was F to M, though; everyone else we’ve discussed is the other way around.

So here’s another theory, which may or may not contradict the other one: conservatives are less into self-expression as a goal and more likely to put whatever weird feelings they have down and play their assigned social role. (I’m convinced General Mattis, for example, may be a gay man who decided to give up the possibility of gay life to serve his country as a military man–which he has done with honor and distinction.) Then, when you get past middle age, you’ve done all you can, so you figure, why not be me, nothing left to lose? The liberal did this 30 years ago.

BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

The first exception that comes to mind is Brianna Wu (birth name John Flynt), the game designer who briefly was in the news during the ‘gamergate’ controversy and is now running for congress in Massachusetts. She has very conventional left identity politics views.

But she also must be one of the most extreme examples of the media “War on Noticing”. She doesn’t identify as transgender, so no article about her in any respectable publication mentions the fact that she is transgender, despite the fact that she very obviously is not a biological female in her appearance or voice:

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

>>>I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself.

No. Your ex-wife is not a man. Never was a man. Never will be a man. Is not on some “journey” to discover HER true self. Your ex-wife is a sick individual. Very sick. And slicing up her body, injecting herself with testosterone is not the correct treatment.

In The Matrix the character Switch was portrayed in the film as simply a tall butch chick. Originally the character was to switch genders depending on whether xe was in or out of the matrix, hence the name. So this subject has seemingly been on Mz Wachowski’s mind for some time.

Perhaps the ‘matrix’ Mz Wachowski wanted to wake up from was simply the gender xe was assigned at birth.

I doubt they were making a political statement, they just wanted to make a kick-ass sci-fi retelling of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. More likely the term “red pill” was co-opted by our side since the film serves as a powerful, accurate, and easily accessible metaphor for the Western world today.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of "right wing" politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don't really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

-----

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it's still quite apparent that they're jerks.

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Hemingway seems to have a “feminine” side to him that came out as he older – and crazier. He paid a lot of attention to his hair and wrote a draft novel The Garden of Eden that was “sensational for its revelation of Hemingway’s sudden and unexpected pre-occupation with transsexual fantasies, androgyny, and gender-merging.”

Of course, one his sons was a full blown trans-sexual – Greg Hemingway also known as “Gloria Hemingway”.

Don't forget "J.N." Pritzker of the Pritzker Military Library. I don't know what his politics were (being Jewish he might have leaned to the left), but strikes me as otherwise having a masculine personality type.

I think there's something going on with the loss of testosterone due to old age. Maybe it gets disproportionately turned into estrogen? There are small amounts of estrogen in normal men, and it's synthesized from testosterone (there's an enzyme called aromatase that creates another aromatic ring). Maybe in a small subset it gets upregulated? My thought is these guys have a high baseline level of T, but for some reason when they get older a lot of it gets turned into estrogen instead.

That’s an interesting theory. Aromatization increases with age apparently. It does seem to be a hormonal thing.

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

You should have held off on the divorce until after the transition. You should have looked on the bright side – you can beat the hell out of your wife if she’s a man.

It's funny that you mention this connection, as there's a semi-serious meme on the alt-right that a lot of these anonymous women on alt-right sites and social media, especially those claiming to be "tradwives" i.e. traditional wives are actually right-wing dudes with a transgender fetish and get off on pretending to be women online.

Well, it’s also just a good way to get people to read your stuff. There’s a pretty widespread belief, especially on the right, that everyone on the internet is a male.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn't have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary's ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

Yea Jan Morris focused a lot of energy on the British empire via his/ her trilogy, but he was hardly Kiplingesque. Kiplingesque figures wouldn’t have opposed the Suez Operation and the Falkland War. It’s also notable that no one really knew Jenner was a republican until he transitioned because he just wasn’t that vocal about politics. A lot of Steve’s theorizing would have probally been better argued before the internet made access to information so easy and people would nod along to things like Jan Morris as Kiplingesque.

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

Traps are young and feminine trannies attracted to men. Jenner does not qualify. Most of his autogyn type are masculine and attracted to women. Rothblatt is still with his long term wife.

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but 20+ years ago, Dennis Miller joked about how Bruce Jenner was starting to look feminine from all of his aerobic work ("Time to pull back on the caloric burn throttle!").

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of "right wing" politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don't really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

-----

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it's still quite apparent that they're jerks.

How is Ann Coulter a jerk? I just never thought that of her. She’s smart, witty, and has a lawyer’s attention to verbal details*. Sure, lots of people on the left and in the media (wait, that’s total overlap) get cheesed off by the fact that she brings their hypocrisy and contradictions to light. A lot of people are really averse to that much truth – it doesn’t make her a jerk.

Listen, Thursday, maybe Miss Coulter is not the jerk around here – the Jerk Store just texted and said they’re runnin’ out of YOU!

(OK, OK, I’m in love with her, that’s really what this is about, sniff, sniff ….**)

* There are lots of jerks who end up as lawyers – it is a good fit, but Ann is part of the 1 % of the lawyers that are trying to give the others a good name.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn't have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary's ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

I would not go as far as beautiful, but in parts of Asia they sometimes start budding trannies on megadoses of female hormones at age 12-14, so they grow real breasts and the rest of the face and body does not undergo masculinization during puberty.

Yea Jan Morris focused a lot of energy on the British empire via his/ her trilogy, but he was hardly Kiplingesque. Kiplingesque figures wouldn't have opposed the Suez Operation and the Falkland War. It's also notable that no one really knew Jenner was a republican until he transitioned because he just wasn't that vocal about politics. A lot of Steve's theorizing would have probally been better argued before the internet made access to information so easy and people would nod along to things like Jan Morris as Kiplingesque.

You’ve obviously never read any of his / her wonderful travel books like Sultan in Oman, so why bother sniping from your parapet?

I've read two of his works. Neither are Kiplingesque. I'm sure if you had contrary evidence you would have cited some particularily Kiplingesque passages. All in all a pretty standard response for this place though.

Lynette Nusbacher is a military historian and lecturer at Sandhurst in England, used to be a man called Aryeh. He had a vogue 10 years ago on British TV, presenting Time Commanders, so I was shocked to find out about the change.

Oh my god, I had to check to see if you were just making a really peculiar joke..

Wowsers! This fella was a lecturer at Sandhurst! And if you thought he was ugly before..

UPDATE – apparently he’s still at Sandhurst, and the officer cadets have been threatened with severe punishment if they laugh or make snide jokes.

If anything, some in the GOP worried that Trump was too pro-homo. He didn’t oppose ‘gay marriage’, and he said it’s okay for Jenner to take a dump at the Trump.

He was also supported by Milo and Drudge cuz he vowed to protect homos from Muslims.
If anything, it’s the progs who are freaking out over Milo the homo.

If Trump is about protecting homos from Muslims, the Dems seem to be about protecting Muslims from Trump… which is not an easy sell since Democratic Party is the Jewish party, and Israel hasn’t been very popular in the Muslim world.

I don’t know where this is going. Trump protecting homos from Muslims who are protected from Trump protecting homos from Muslims…

In a way, this whole mess is due to the Hate Paradox. People naturally want to destroy their object of hate. They want to eradicate and exterminate it, BUT if their sense of self-worth and moral identity are entwined with this object of their hate, they want the object to go on existing in order to be exterminated and eradicated. It’s like Zeno’s Paradox with the tortoise. The crusade is for total obliteration, but somehow, the thing never gets entirely eradicated since the radical hater needs it to keep existing to justify his moral existence. (Even if it is totally eradicated in the material world, it lives on in the mental realm in the form of shadows.)

Some people hate something and would hardly miss it if it were gone. If someone hates rats, roaches, and lice, and if they were go away, he’d be fine with their absence. His sense of moral worth is not invested in hating them critters. He just hates them for spreading filth. So, if they’re gone forever, good riddance.

But some objects of hate are like a moral drug. Hating them makes you feel soooooo good. It’s like the moral high that Christians got from hating and hunting witches. Christians were committed to getting rid of all witches… but their lives would actually be empty in a world without witches since hunting witches makes their lives feel justified. So, this leads to the Hate Paradox where they do want to exterminate something so much that they want it to go on existing for them to exterminate.

And this passion is bigger on the Left than on the Right. The Right is less about higher(utopian and impossible) ideals than about what is real and tangible: blood and soil.
The Left is intoxicated with vision of ‘better society’, and that means it defines itself mainly in opposition.
A rightist-conservative society without leftists and radicals(eradicated or expelled) may not miss them. It would be content with self-containment.
But a leftist society without rightist enemies to hunt and eradicate would feel empty. So, when all the real rightists are eradicated, it has to look for more. And if rightist vermin cannot be found, they must be hallucinated into existence, like KKK at Oberlin or Republicans as ‘new nazis’. Or the left may even turn on other leftists(deemed not radical enough) as ‘capitalist roaders’. This is why purges were far more extensive in leftist orders than in rightist ones. It’s just the part of leftist ideological DNA. It’s rabid. Totally get rid of them… forever. But how can it be forever if they are to be eradicated?

I think the Left should be more concerned that it keeps betting on mentally disturbed folks to lead them to victory/destroy the opponent.

After Crazy Lizzie Warren and Bruce Jenner and the psycho-terrorists striking at Berkeley and the BLM killers, you’d think they’d take a step back and go, “Wait, why are our most vocal hopes batshit insane? Is it something about our message?”

And then President Trump will tweet something and they’ll all snap and start blathering on about his “mental instability” and forget all about how they recruit crazies.

Traps are young and feminine trannies attracted to men. Jenner does not qualify. Most of his autogyn type are masculine and attracted to women. Rothblatt is still with his long term wife.

I’m sure I’ve mentioned it before, but 20+ years ago, Dennis Miller joked about how Bruce Jenner was starting to look feminine from all of his aerobic work (“Time to pull back on the caloric burn throttle!”).

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

The obsession with ‘traps’ is just age old pederasty manifested in modern form, unlikely to be a social commentary on transexualism.

I'm not sure how you figure that. Someone who found erotic appeal in children or early-adolescents would find comparable appeal in an 18 or over mutilated male pseudo-woman? Difficult to imagine that or understand that.

I really, really doubt he would. He doesn't seem like the military *or* engineering type, which are the ones that seem to be doing it.

It would make a great SNL skit, though now that they have to spend all their time dressing up women like his cabinet to be PC they can't do it anymore, ironically...trannies are left-coded and hence that would make him look good by their standards.

P.S> I would also add how Jesse Jackson Jr. was quietly been committed for his mental health issues after a brief period where he literally threatened a member of Congress with a beating while he was speaking on the floor.

Some older guy like Jenner comes out of nowhere with something like that and a person is bound to wonder how long this has been going on in his head. Probably all along since none seem to claim sudden onset but rather that they always felt like this. In retrospect perhaps they were trying to cure themselves by pursuing the most macho careers they could find as a form of over-compensation.

I really, really doubt he would. He doesn’t seem like the military *or* engineering type, which are the ones that seem to be doing it.

It would make a great SNL skit, though now that they have to spend all their time dressing up women like his cabinet to be PC they can’t do it anymore, ironically…trannies are left-coded and hence that would make him look good by their standards.

Everyone here's going to make cracks about cucks and beta males, so I'll just say: that sucks. I am very sorry for you. Having your spouse switch gender on you on top of the stress of divorce is incredibly surreal, bizarre, and dispiriting.

Interesting it was F to M, though; everyone else we've discussed is the other way around.

So here's another theory, which may or may not contradict the other one: conservatives are less into self-expression as a goal and more likely to put whatever weird feelings they have down and play their assigned social role. (I'm convinced General Mattis, for example, may be a gay man who decided to give up the possibility of gay life to serve his country as a military man--which he has done with honor and distinction.) Then, when you get past middle age, you've done all you can, so you figure, why not be me, nothing left to lose? The liberal did this 30 years ago.

BTW, people here are pretty 'xenophobic', anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don't even consider neocons conservatives.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don’t need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don’t completely understand your comment about “BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives.”

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let’s take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I’ll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don’t need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants. We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.

No, neocons are generally pro-immigrant; it was one of the things that un-endeared them to paleocons, besides starting a stupid war with Iraq and being heavily Jewish.

The Republican party itself only dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, and was formed to oppose slavery. Obviously the parties have shifted around a bit. There was a whole tug-of-war in the GOP between neocons and paleocons a while back in the 70s, and the neocons came out ahead; then they blew themselves up in Iraq and now the paleocons have their chance (though the alt-right, which is more explicitly white-identity, may be a more salient description). Support for more immigration is a recent thing and, IMHO, has more to do with corporations wanting cheap labor than anything else.

I'll leave the immigration argument to everyone else here (suffice it to say I support restriction), but before everyone piles on you, you've got your terms mixed up. You may not be a student of American politics, but generally neocons are supportive of aggressive attempts to spread democracy abroad and favor more immigration. It's not a generic term of abuse (though it's become that after W messed up); it refers to a specific political position and outlook, originally centered around the journal of opinion Commentary and later adopted by National Review as well. Paleocons, conversely, are more isolationist and favor restricting immigration. This site is much closer to the paleocon or alt-right position, though Ron Unz likes to put all kinds of positions on his site. Pat Buchanan is a classic paleocon; Ron Paul is more of a paleolibertarian.

It's kind of like calling Ayn Rand a fascist because you don't like her; there are plenty of reasons to dislike Ayn Rand, but she didn't argue for a large, powerful state.

If you have the time, I'd suggest finding a copy of George Hawley's Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism; it's a bit dated post-Trump, but it'll explain the other philosophies.

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let’s take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I’ll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don’t need any payback, because I proved my point.

Dear Dr Kopelovich,

You sound like a decent person and so I have to tell you this gently. If you get your bet wrong and 25 million immigrants a year are not a good idea and your country ends up like Lebanon in the 70s, it will not be the sort of situation that can be resolved with a round of beer.

How are you going to buy us all a beer, cough, Doctor, cough, cough, when Sharia Law doesn't allow it?

You can't be as stupid as your posts indicate, unless your "Doctor" title means Doctorate in Psychology. Ron Paul, even in his late '70's, would kick your ass for calling him a neocon (well maybe with Pat Buchanan's help).

If you are not just having fun with the iSteve crowd, as Mr. Baldwin suggests, I think your wife was the sane one in your marriage. I take back everything I was gonna say about her.

To be fair my college educated, German Americsn husband thought that was still the national anthem of Germany.

It is still the national anthem of Germany. You just aren't supposed to sing the first two verses in public. The first verse is not really as "chauvinistic/nationalistic" as people like to claim, (it was really a 19th century call to unity) but it does claim a lot of land for Germany that now lies in Poland/Russia/Lithuania.

OT but thought you’d all appreciate knowing the Constitution is in good hands:

“We’re here today to defend the Muslim community and the undocumented,” Bourema Naimbele, a Mali native and one of the founding members of the coalition, told the Observer during the march. “I’m here to defend the United States Constitution because our Constitution has been violated by one president.”

There was a lot of closeted homosexuality going on, particularly in all-male environment like boarding schools and the army. You may remember the stereotypes about sailors, and I’m sure a lot of guys who wouldn’t otherwise have even thought about it decided to get a little guy action to pass the time…isolation does things to people. Heck, at the other end of the masculinity bell curve, look at incels and hentai.

Probably less than the modern gays finding it everywhere want to claim, but more than people at the times wanted to admit.

The Wachowski Siblings lost the opportunity to call it instead the “pink pill.” It would fit better their present stance.

They also lost the opportunity of making Trinity the digital self of someone like Pablo the They. We know how “They Trinity” would have treated those courthouse deputies. Maybe They could have more than one digital self and They could be both Switch and Trinity, or is it enough for a They to be a Trinity?

Back to the point, I've had personal and family experience with mental illness and have some insight others might not have. During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well. While I remembered life events and facts about myself, everything was filtered through my depressive and manic thought processes. I easily dismissed any evidence my loved ones presented of having thought or felt differently. It took almost a year of recovery to fully let go of the delusions I suffered while ill.

If transgenderism is a mental illness, then it doesn't surprise me that its victims report having "always felt like a girl inside" or whatever, despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary.Out of balance neurotransmitters and hormones have powerful effects on the brain. In my experience, this imbalance practically redefined my identity.

But then, don't take my word for it. After all, I just told you I'm crazy.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

I’ll take it with pleasure, since we have the preponderance of evidence on our side. Except that I think that we’ll win.

How is Ann Coulter a jerk? I just never thought that of her. She's smart, witty, and has a lawyer's attention to verbal details*. Sure, lots of people on the left and in the media (wait, that's total overlap) get cheesed off by the fact that she brings their hypocrisy and contradictions to light. A lot of people are really averse to that much truth - it doesn't make her a jerk.

Listen, Thursday, maybe Miss Coulter is not the jerk around here - the Jerk Store just texted and said they're runnin' out of YOU!

(OK, OK, I'm in love with her, that's really what this is about, sniff, sniff ....**)

* There are lots of jerks who end up as lawyers - it is a good fit, but Ann is part of the 1 % of the lawyers that are trying to give the others a good name.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants. We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.

Yeah, the modern form of conservatism (pre-Trump) basically inherited the 1960s liberal positions on race and immigration. There's a movement now back toward the 1920-1960 position, and the alt-right goes back even further, basically being a white identity politics movement, and proudly so. The SJWs, after years of accusing conservatives of being racists and fascists to score political points and essentially defeating Christian conservatives in the culture wars, have actually created that which they so feared.

Ross Douthat had an article in the NYT where he basically said: you killed the Religious Right, which was trying to help cure AIDS in Africa and trying to reach out to minorities, and now you've got Nazis because white people are sick of hearing how they are evil because of their skin color. Well, I'll go to hell!, as Huck Finn said in a very different context.

"The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants."

Indeed, because the Founding Fathers had elitist notions regarding "inbreeding"--the English marry the English, the Germans marry the Germans, etc. That idea went by the wayside as third and fourth generation Americans began to marry outside of their ethnic groups for reasons other than ethnicity--shared religious values, combining economic resources.

"We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation."

According to nativists there were "troublesome ethnicities". The Poles, Italians, and Greeks, for example, would beg to differ. Besides, I thought white Europeans were desirable compared to other groups of people entering our shores. What gives?

I know a high school senior who is MtF "transgendered." The tragically hilarious part is this kid is 74" tall and big. And the taller, more broad-shouldered, and squarer-jawed he gets, the more dresses, makeup, and scarves he puts on. All anybody from my generation can think of when they see him is Monty Python.

All medical and scientific inquiry into this condition seems to have halted. If you say you're really female despite having an XY chromosome in every cell in your body, then that's that. Note that this also eliminates compassion as a response to the condition, because compassion implies that the object of compassion is defective or otherwise pathological, so even feeling sorry for a transgender is crimethink. Therefore, the entire rest of the world has to play along with this absolutely un-real charade to signal our virtue.

The Monty Python boys made for more plausible women, it must be observed.

It's just .. Nusbacher is one of the world's greatest military history nerds. He can speak confidently and informatively on everything from Cannae and Gaugamela to Austerlitz and Iwo Jima; the British grenadiers at Blenheim or the intricacies of Bolshevik tank-motor production..

And he, a history professor at one of the world's top war colleges; he, a man with wife and child, that he has decided to part with his manhood and put on the dress?

I'm not an American so this probably a more effective shock to me than "the breakfast of champions."

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

No, neocons are generally pro-immigrant; it was one of the things that un-endeared them to paleocons, besides starting a stupid war with Iraq and being heavily Jewish.

The Republican party itself only dates back to the mid-nineteenth century, and was formed to oppose slavery. Obviously the parties have shifted around a bit. There was a whole tug-of-war in the GOP between neocons and paleocons a while back in the 70s, and the neocons came out ahead; then they blew themselves up in Iraq and now the paleocons have their chance (though the alt-right, which is more explicitly white-identity, may be a more salient description). Support for more immigration is a recent thing and, IMHO, has more to do with corporations wanting cheap labor than anything else.

I’ll leave the immigration argument to everyone else here (suffice it to say I support restriction), but before everyone piles on you, you’ve got your terms mixed up. You may not be a student of American politics, but generally neocons are supportive of aggressive attempts to spread democracy abroad and favor more immigration. It’s not a generic term of abuse (though it’s become that after W messed up); it refers to a specific political position and outlook, originally centered around the journal of opinion Commentary and later adopted by National Review as well. Paleocons, conversely, are more isolationist and favor restricting immigration. This site is much closer to the paleocon or alt-right position, though Ron Unz likes to put all kinds of positions on his site. Pat Buchanan is a classic paleocon; Ron Paul is more of a paleolibertarian.

It’s kind of like calling Ayn Rand a fascist because you don’t like her; there are plenty of reasons to dislike Ayn Rand, but she didn’t argue for a large, powerful state.

If you have the time, I’d suggest finding a copy of George Hawley’s Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism; it’s a bit dated post-Trump, but it’ll explain the other philosophies.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn't have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary's ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

You put my thoughts on the matter down, better than I did. Wish I’d seen your comment first.

I don’t know much about these people so I did a few quick internet searches. According to Wikipedia, the Wachowskis (formerly known as The Wachowski Brothers) are sisters. One of the top Google results for Martin Rothblatt is “Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid female CEO in America.”

Both of these “facts” strike me as very funny. I wonder if liberal goodthinkers secretly wince or ever get confused when they say these kinds of things. Its fairly easy to pretend that a person can change his gender by “identifying” differently. But then you have to pretend that the trans-person was always that gender. So, we are supposed to speak as if Caitlyn Jenner won the gold medal in 1976.

Then, it really gets crazy when you have to take things to their rational (meaning totally irrational conclusion). When two brothers became women . . . No, I mean they were always women, so now they are sisters – not to imply that they weren’t always sisters. Women don’t get equal pay and there’s the glass ceiling and all of that but it’s totally O.K. that the highest paid female CEO is a man.

>>>I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself.

No. Your ex-wife is not a man. Never was a man. Never will be a man. Is not on some "journey" to discover HER true self. Your ex-wife is a sick individual. Very sick. And slicing up her body, injecting herself with testosterone is not the correct treatment.

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants. We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.

Yeah, the modern form of conservatism (pre-Trump) basically inherited the 1960s liberal positions on race and immigration. There’s a movement now back toward the 1920-1960 position, and the alt-right goes back even further, basically being a white identity politics movement, and proudly so. The SJWs, after years of accusing conservatives of being racists and fascists to score political points and essentially defeating Christian conservatives in the culture wars, have actually created that which they so feared.

Ross Douthat had an article in the NYT where he basically said: you killed the Religious Right, which was trying to help cure AIDS in Africa and trying to reach out to minorities, and now you’ve got Nazis because white people are sick of hearing how they are evil because of their skin color. Well, I’ll go to hell!, as Huck Finn said in a very different context.

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

I think that if you love someone, you will always wish them the best. Good for you for supporting your wifes transition. Agree with SFG though, it must have been tough. Not sure if I would have been able to behave as ethically as you did. Anyone can get married, behaving well in a divorce is a real test of character.

This is true. A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable. The tranny recently led a walkout over some sort of SJW crusade but by then I'd moved on to JavaScript.

Here's some copy from an event in April hosted by USC for female* student hackers.
From the website Athenahackers.com

Trans and Non-Binary Welcome!

Can I Attend?
If are an undergraduate, graduate, or high school female* who loves to hack, the answer is YES! Women* in industry are welcome to mentor! If you identify as male, we're sorry to say this hacking environment is not for you. This hackathon is about bringing women together in a comfortable setting.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

natural process of transitioning to become yourself.

Unnatural process of self-mutilation and desecration to indulge one’s delusions to the point of irreversibly altering and damaging oneself.

Fixed that for you.

I pity you not only for having to endure the experience of watching someone who was so close to you do that herself but also for buying into the denial of what is objective reality.

How is Ann Coulter a jerk? I just never thought that of her. She's smart, witty, and has a lawyer's attention to verbal details*. Sure, lots of people on the left and in the media (wait, that's total overlap) get cheesed off by the fact that she brings their hypocrisy and contradictions to light. A lot of people are really averse to that much truth - it doesn't make her a jerk.

Listen, Thursday, maybe Miss Coulter is not the jerk around here - the Jerk Store just texted and said they're runnin' out of YOU!

(OK, OK, I'm in love with her, that's really what this is about, sniff, sniff ....**)

* There are lots of jerks who end up as lawyers - it is a good fit, but Ann is part of the 1 % of the lawyers that are trying to give the others a good name.

To each his own. Again, people, this is a safe space for truth. Please, cut out the PC!

I don't think she's that sexy really, but she is in no way a jerk. She just won't let herself get taken advantage of by the LP (Lyin' Press), and you don't see that much - that's what takes people aback. If that's man-like, I'd really like to see more men do that.

As was mentioned earlier, I suspect Coulter is just an excellent lawyer. The nicest of us are putbulls when we argue, and Coulter argues for a living; all our exposure to her is in this context as a professional, public pundit. It wouldn't surpeise me a bit if she's a very pleasant person to chat with at a cocktail party or out for a run and chatting about apolitical matters.

It's not uncommon for the spouses of lawyers, if the couple were already together before the one studied law, to complain that becoming a lawyer changed the spouse, that the spouse now is more argumentative and critical of things, etc.

The common shorthand for cultivating this mindest is "learning to think like a lawyer." It's crucial for becoming a good lawyer, but otherwise damaging to one's personality if not checked and balanced.

A lot of us make a point of refusing to discuss work at all in social contexts, to help avoid the phenomenon.

Being tenacious in arguments, meticulous at choosing words, etc. is necessary for effective lawyering, but being a jerk is actually deleterious to one's success in practice: law very much requires dispassionate assessments, diplomatically telling clients things they don't want to hear, compromising about scheduling and discovery to keep cases on track and not antagonise judges, and negotiating contracts. True jerks are bad at that stuff.

For what is worth, I saw Ann Coulter live once at an event at a (very liberal) college. The event was organized by the local Republican students. The crowd was small, and Ann made a couple of cracks about the half-empty audience that didn't sit well, at least for me. What did she expect at a liberal College? And how was that the fault of the people who went there just to listen to her? But maybe she was just having a bad day.

That said, she has a lot of charisma, and I like her writings, and she is very talented and brave. I think she does have a masculine personality, more than many supposed men. Also she never married or had kids, but I don't know the reasons for that.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let’s take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I’ll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don’t need any payback, because I proved my point.

Dear Dr Kopelovich,

You sound like a decent person and so I have to tell you this gently. If you get your bet wrong and 25 million immigrants a year are not a good idea and your country ends up like Lebanon in the 70s, it will not be the sort of situation that can be resolved with a round of beer.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

This is a whackjob movie by DePalma but infinitely superior to ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW that came out the yr later.

There was a time when the freaky stuff in ROCKY HORROR was considered freaky and cult, along with John Waters crap like PINK FLAMINGOS.

But what was cultist and freakshow back then have now been made the norm in our garbage world where tattoos and piercings have been normalized, along with pornification of childhood via trashy idols and garbage TV.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

How are you going to buy us all a beer, cough, Doctor, cough, cough, when Sharia Law doesn’t allow it?

You can’t be as stupid as your posts indicate, unless your “Doctor” title means Doctorate in Psychology. Ron Paul, even in his late ’70′s, would kick your ass for calling him a neocon (well maybe with Pat Buchanan’s help).

If you are not just having fun with the iSteve crowd, as Mr. Baldwin suggests, I think your wife was the sane one in your marriage. I take back everything I was gonna say about her.

Putting aside the issue of transgenderism, what percentage of Western Men over the age of 40 are right of center in their political/cultural views? If you look at the entirety of men and not just politicians and entertainers, I would guess it’s a very high percentage. So that might explain much of the pattern you see.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

BTW, love the video on your website:

I have had trouble to when I turn up on first dates in my Hazmat suit. I thought that I was the only one.

I would not go as far as beautiful, but in parts of Asia they sometimes start budding trannies on megadoses of female hormones at age 12-14, so they grow real breasts and the rest of the face and body does not undergo masculinization during puberty.

Now I’m really looking forward to being ruled by our new East Asian overlords! I can’t wait!

(And just imagine how well-fertilized our public green areas will be when the South Asians take over!)

How is Ann Coulter a jerk? I just never thought that of her. She's smart, witty, and has a lawyer's attention to verbal details*. Sure, lots of people on the left and in the media (wait, that's total overlap) get cheesed off by the fact that she brings their hypocrisy and contradictions to light. A lot of people are really averse to that much truth - it doesn't make her a jerk.

Listen, Thursday, maybe Miss Coulter is not the jerk around here - the Jerk Store just texted and said they're runnin' out of YOU!

(OK, OK, I'm in love with her, that's really what this is about, sniff, sniff ....**)

* There are lots of jerks who end up as lawyers - it is a good fit, but Ann is part of the 1 % of the lawyers that are trying to give the others a good name.

Your first sentence is partially right, but that would me she's seen as a jerk by the left. I think she's seen as an enemy more than a jerk by them -but then they got freaked out by George W. Bush, who was quite far to the left of John Kennedy.

Your 2nd sentence does not make much sense as a reply. Perhaps it's late where you are. I am not a liberal except in the classical sense, which makes me a libertarian (mostly), as is Ann - I don't know if we have chemistry between us yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwZrr3f-NjQ

I'm the vocalist with the cool shades. Ann (in my dreams) is the girl in the bathtub at 1:42.

Software development is currently being overrun with trannies, usually the late-blooming variety.
It's really quite fascinating and suggests something about the work appealing to "male brains".

Hilariously, no one seems to notice that the most expedient way to improve the gender balance the field is to just have lots of the boys transition into girls. Boom. Job done.

This is true. A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable. The tranny recently led a walkout over some sort of SJW crusade but by then I’d moved on to JavaScript.

> A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable.

I know exactly who you're talking about. The podcast host recently devoted an episode to trying to figure out why his audience figures have been declining and what he could do to fix it. It was embarrassing.

I too ended up moving on from that particular language community, btw.

In other news: that same tranny recently joined a company that's been collecting SJWs like Pokémons. Morale among the most experience engineees has declined precipitously. Hmmm.

It's pretty obvious that Ms. Coulter has a very abrasive (and masculine) personality. I guess some conservative guys are masochists. To each their own.

To each his own. Again, people, this is a safe space for truth. Please, cut out the PC!

I don’t think she’s that sexy really, but she is in no way a jerk. She just won’t let herself get taken advantage of by the LP (Lyin’ Press), and you don’t see that much – that’s what takes people aback. If that’s man-like, I’d really like to see more men do that.

As one who has encountered, first hand, much “transgenderism” in academic and “social justice” environments, I have come to believe that for some, perhaps even many, there really is serious emotional and mental disturbance. Here is the adult mother of a 14 year old “boy to girl transgender” (who has been highly sexualized, as the photographs will show) who now reveals that she too (the adult married female biological mother of 6 children) is a transgender “man” and, with testosterone and surgery, is transitioning from “woman to man.”

Mother of transgender girl reveals she is now also transitioning into a MAN

Erica House, a mother-of-six from Detroit Michigan, proudly supported her daughter Corey after she revealed she was a transgender girl .
A year after she surprised Corey with her first estrogen prescription, Erica is living as a man named Eric.
Eric said his husband Les and their children have been completely supportive of him and his transition.
Eric has been taking testosterone since February, and he hopes to have tops surgery to remove his breasts next month.

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender “support group” that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one’s biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a “you are transgender” and here is how you can be even “more” transgender, get hormones, get surgery. Transgenderism has become somewhat of a secular “religion” and while many religions do no harm, others become dangerous and some even become a cult. I recognize the trajectory of “transgenderism.”

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender “support group” that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one’s biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a “you are transgender” and here is how you can be even “more” transgender, get hormones, get surgery.

4thWaveNow, a site that bills itself as, "A community of parents & friends skeptical of the "transgender child/teen" trend", contains much documentation and discussion of exactly what you have described. I discovered the site thanks to an iSteve commenter posting it here back in May. Particularly remarkable about the 4thWaveNow site is that it was created by "a left-leaning parent". And, from the admittedly limited perusing I have done of the site, it would appear that at least most of those who post there are "respectables" who, at least for the most part, have bought into the rest of the "LGB" Doctrine and agenda.

I must say that perhaps the single greatest misgiving I have had about now-President Trump since the campaign and continue to have is his atrocious record in this entire area of "'LGBTQ' issues". And now comes this:

(I must point-out that the way Ivanka is dressed in the photo itself contradicts her purported embrace of Orthodox Judaism. The "rabbis" who performed her "conversion" are known, at the very least, for being at the left-most fringes of what can even be called "Orthodox". How naive does one have to be not to see that this was a "conversion" of convenience, for the obvious purpose of being able to claim that the marriage was kosher.)

The obsession with 'traps' is just age old pederasty manifested in modern form, unlikely to be a social commentary on transexualism.

I’m not sure how you figure that. Someone who found erotic appeal in children or early-adolescents would find comparable appeal in an 18 or over mutilated male pseudo-woman? Difficult to imagine that or understand that.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don’t judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn’t keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don’t care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don’t need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don’t let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don’t take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don’t let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven’t learned the lessons of George Bush’s failed policy of “fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”

I’m sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump’s racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

1. A doctorate in "anti-terrorism studies." Really? There is such a thing?
2. Oh, hot damn, you're in MENSA but "don't need to brag about how I am better than you." Don't worry, no one reading your posts is feeling intimidated.
3. Did I mention that WE'RE FULL? People in corrupt, tribal, third-world hell holes should stay there and try to improve their hell holes.

"America" in the abstract might be able to deal with the loss of life. But if my husband died it would devastate me and our children, and irrevocably change our lives for the worse. I'd have no more children. I'd live out the rest of my life alone. We'd be substantially poorer. My kids probably wouldn't even remember their father, as they are so young. People who die of terror attacks aren't numbers. They have spouses and children and families that love them and rely on them and depend on them. They aren't just fungible people-units.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don’t let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

During a one week research stay with the SFPD’s homicide squad I commented to one of my hosts on how attractive the hookers in San Francisco were. He and his partner started laughing and told me the ones in the area of my hotel were all transvestites. The police regularly intervened in disputes between them and heterosexual clients who felt they’d been duped. Evidently these sometimes got quite ugly. BTW, I’m strictly heterosexual and am pretty discriminating about feminine pulchritude.

I'm sure that Eddie Murphy was shocked, shocked, shocked to learn that the damsel-in-distress to whom he so gallantly offered a ride turned out to be a transvestite.

I wonder if there are lots of kids in San Francisco who discover that their nannies are mannies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8M3LfUKVno

Robin Williams was working on Mrs. Doubtfire 2 at the time of his death. He didn't want to do it, but he needed the money - his ex-wives were sucking him dry. Yet another victory for feminists everywhere.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

Respect, 4 years of trolling. Playing the long game. Pretty pretty good.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

If you think Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are neoconservatives you must be visiting from an alternate universe. I can’t take someone like you seriously.

Ann is seen as a jerk because she can skillfully employ rhetoric against the left and she never backs down or virtue signals.

I hate to break your heart, but she thinks liberals are pot smoking puss.ies.

Your first sentence is partially right, but that would me she’s seen as a jerk by the left. I think she’s seen as an enemy more than a jerk by them -but then they got freaked out by George W. Bush, who was quite far to the left of John Kennedy.

Your 2nd sentence does not make much sense as a reply. Perhaps it’s late where you are. I am not a liberal except in the classical sense, which makes me a libertarian (mostly), as is Ann – I don’t know if we have chemistry between us yet.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

OK, I admit. I have been trolled worse than my party at the end of the Slums in Pool of Radiance.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

Dr. Kyle: Are you the original “MillionDollarBonus” of Zerohedge infamy?

It's pretty obvious that Ms. Coulter has a very abrasive (and masculine) personality. I guess some conservative guys are masochists. To each their own.

As was mentioned earlier, I suspect Coulter is just an excellent lawyer. The nicest of us are putbulls when we argue, and Coulter argues for a living; all our exposure to her is in this context as a professional, public pundit. It wouldn’t surpeise me a bit if she’s a very pleasant person to chat with at a cocktail party or out for a run and chatting about apolitical matters.

It’s not uncommon for the spouses of lawyers, if the couple were already together before the one studied law, to complain that becoming a lawyer changed the spouse, that the spouse now is more argumentative and critical of things, etc.

The common shorthand for cultivating this mindest is “learning to think like a lawyer.” It’s crucial for becoming a good lawyer, but otherwise damaging to one’s personality if not checked and balanced.

A lot of us make a point of refusing to discuss work at all in social contexts, to help avoid the phenomenon.

Being tenacious in arguments, meticulous at choosing words, etc. is necessary for effective lawyering, but being a jerk is actually deleterious to one’s success in practice: law very much requires dispassionate assessments, diplomatically telling clients things they don’t want to hear, compromising about scheduling and discovery to keep cases on track and not antagonise judges, and negotiating contracts. True jerks are bad at that stuff.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

You've obviously never read any of his / her wonderful travel books like Sultan in Oman, so why bother sniping from your parapet?

I’ve read two of his works. Neither are Kiplingesque. I’m sure if you had contrary evidence you would have cited some particularily Kiplingesque passages. All in all a pretty standard response for this place though.

The Wachowski Siblings lost the opportunity to call it instead the “pink pill.” It would fit better their present stance.

They also lost the opportunity of making Trinity the digital self of someone like Pablo the They. We know how "They Trinity" would have treated those courthouse deputies. Maybe They could have more than one digital self and They could be both Switch and Trinity, or is it enough for a They to be a Trinity?

Ouch, this makes my brain hurt.

Back to the point, I’ve had personal and family experience with mental illness and have some insight others might not have. During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well. While I remembered life events and facts about myself, everything was filtered through my depressive and manic thought processes. I easily dismissed any evidence my loved ones presented of having thought or felt differently. It took almost a year of recovery to fully let go of the delusions I suffered while ill.

If transgenderism is a mental illness, then it doesn’t surprise me that its victims report having “always felt like a girl inside” or whatever, despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary.
Out of balance neurotransmitters and hormones have powerful effects on the brain. In my experience, this imbalance practically redefined my identity.

But then, don’t take my word for it. After all, I just told you I’m crazy.

"During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well."

That's a pretty common aspect of a lot of different mental troubles: the brain retcons its own memories to coincide with current feelings.

My playing football for Harvard despite no athletic scholarship or working my way up to Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army despite inheriting a billion dollars just shows how desperately I must have been trying to cover up.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

To each his own. Again, people, this is a safe space for truth. Please, cut out the PC!

I don't think she's that sexy really, but she is in no way a jerk. She just won't let herself get taken advantage of by the LP (Lyin' Press), and you don't see that much - that's what takes people aback. If that's man-like, I'd really like to see more men do that.

Ann Coulter may be smart and talented, but she is also abrasive as hell. Denying the obvious only makes you look like an idiot.

She doesn't sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don't let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That's why Trump uses twitter a lot probably - it takes a while for the really good comeback - one based on fact - to come to him. I can't say I'd be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again - "Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they're runnin' out of you!")

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she's not abrasive - as Boomstick replied about her being charming when "not in the fray", I guess that means as long as you don't give her crap and spew out lies to her, she'd be nice to be around (but, she's obviously not your type).

As was mentioned earlier, I suspect Coulter is just an excellent lawyer. The nicest of us are putbulls when we argue, and Coulter argues for a living; all our exposure to her is in this context as a professional, public pundit. It wouldn't surpeise me a bit if she's a very pleasant person to chat with at a cocktail party or out for a run and chatting about apolitical matters.

It's not uncommon for the spouses of lawyers, if the couple were already together before the one studied law, to complain that becoming a lawyer changed the spouse, that the spouse now is more argumentative and critical of things, etc.

The common shorthand for cultivating this mindest is "learning to think like a lawyer." It's crucial for becoming a good lawyer, but otherwise damaging to one's personality if not checked and balanced.

A lot of us make a point of refusing to discuss work at all in social contexts, to help avoid the phenomenon.

Being tenacious in arguments, meticulous at choosing words, etc. is necessary for effective lawyering, but being a jerk is actually deleterious to one's success in practice: law very much requires dispassionate assessments, diplomatically telling clients things they don't want to hear, compromising about scheduling and discovery to keep cases on track and not antagonise judges, and negotiating contracts. True jerks are bad at that stuff.

I suspect Coulter is just an excellent lawyer. The nicest of us are pitbulls when we argue

You aren’t helping. I’m sorry to break it to you, but lawyers tend to be jerks both professionally and otherwise.

Becoming a lawyer may well make you more like the professional average, but causation works the other way too: the profession where you argue for a living tends to attract argumentative bastards.

Thanks for your kind words SFG I don't need to be felt sorry for, It was a something I created by not being there all the time for her like a real man would be.

I don't completely understand your comment about "BTW, people here are pretty ‘xenophobic’, anti-war, and anti-immigrant, so you might be a little out of step here. A lot of them don’t even consider neocons conservatives."

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy. They basically make things up and came out of nowhere to challenge the true conservatives that control the party. That is why I refer to idiots like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul as neocons. How can someone call Republicans like me a neocon when that is the governing Republican orthodoxy dating back centuries?

I challenge all of those neocon frauds to this bet. Let's take in 5 million immigrants a year for the next 20 years, upping it by a million each year, so at year 20 we are taking in 25 million immigrants. In 20 years we will sit down and discuss the results. You neocons and liberals like Donald Trump and Steve Sailer say this is a bad thing right? If you win and America sucks because of immigrants, I'll buy you a beer. If I win and America kicks ass and the new immigrants join our military, then I don't need any payback, because I proved my point. Anyone want to take that bet?

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

1. A doctorate in “anti-terrorism studies.” Really? There is such a thing?
2. Oh, hot damn, you’re in MENSA but “don’t need to brag about how I am better than you.” Don’t worry, no one reading your posts is feeling intimidated.
3. Did I mention that WE’RE FULL? People in corrupt, tribal, third-world hell holes should stay there and try to improve their hell holes.

If you’re drinking or eating from food in that’s in contact with hot/frozen plastics you need to stop that now. What we consume is contaminated with synthetic estrogens that leach into our foods from the packaging we store them in, and testosterone levels and sperm counts in the male population have been plummeting for decades now as a result. Read Our Stolen Future by Dianne Dumanoski. I only eat from glass, china and steel anymore whenever possible.

I’m a generation x guy who spends a lot of time lately around late teen/early 20 something kids. The incidence of androgynous/indeterminately gendered young people I come into contact with is off the charts. I’m not talking about the goth boy / lesbian punk rock girl fads that were around when I was a kid. I specifically talking about a small but not insignificant minority of the youth population laving obvious secondary sexual characteristics. I don’t remember people like this growing up and it’s a really disturbing trend.

With Jenner, that guy was an athlete in the 70s so who knows what kind of industrial grade doses of rhino hormones they were giving him. It’s safe to assume his endocrine system is fried, and that it’s the same situation with a lot of these other super alpha males like Matt Kroczaleski. I doubt they represent the majority of M to F transexuals. Beyond environmental/physical explanations there does seem to be a weird nexus between the worlds of bodybuilding/sci-fi/alpha maleness and transgenderism that I don’t understand. I assume with F to M it’s just ugly women taking lesbianism to it’s logical conclusion, and perhaps we can say that with homosexuality and transgenderism generally.

Also the red pill idea was originally from Verhoeven’s 1990 movie Total Recall with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Same here. I have never in my life drank hot coffee from a Styrofoam cup. Pure insanity! How about heating up TV dinners in their plastic trays? Nice hot plastic poisons cooking into your food as you microwave it. My favorite cups for hot liquids like tea and coffee is glass or Corelle ware by Corning. The glazes are poisonous on cheap Chinese imports. We have a shitload of glass cups at home for consuming hot liquids.

How about all those take out foods from Chinese and other eateries that are packed in Styrofoam and other plastics/ Your hot takeout meal, is cooking in plastic.

I will drink a cold or cool liquid out of plastic but it does not happen often. I am not drinking loads of sodas or anything else that comes in plastic bottles.I just reserved the book you mention at my public library -- Our Stolen Future by Dianne Dumanoski.

Yes these plastic poisons are effecting the males in the Millennial generation.

The Wachowskis’ Sense8 netflix series was a cringefest of politically correct tropes. The m-to-f transsexual character was the most dramatically lionised of the bunch, natch. (I don’t remember why I was up for watching 8 episodes of it – no idea what they’ve done with the characters since then).

Back to the point, I've had personal and family experience with mental illness and have some insight others might not have. During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well. While I remembered life events and facts about myself, everything was filtered through my depressive and manic thought processes. I easily dismissed any evidence my loved ones presented of having thought or felt differently. It took almost a year of recovery to fully let go of the delusions I suffered while ill.

If transgenderism is a mental illness, then it doesn't surprise me that its victims report having "always felt like a girl inside" or whatever, despite a lifetime of evidence to the contrary.Out of balance neurotransmitters and hormones have powerful effects on the brain. In my experience, this imbalance practically redefined my identity.

But then, don't take my word for it. After all, I just told you I'm crazy.

Thanks.

“During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well.”

That’s a pretty common aspect of a lot of different mental troubles: the brain retcons its own memories to coincide with current feelings.

My playing football for Harvard despite no athletic scholarship or working my way up to Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army despite inheriting a billion dollars just shows how desperately I must have been trying to cover up.

My wife's been bipolar the 26 years I've known her. She also has a great ability to retcon her memories to suit what she currently believes. I had never thought of it in the terms you stated. Mostly, it exasperated me to have to say, "No, this is what happened" and then deal with her denials: "I never / never would have / I can't believe I would have." She doesn't have to be actively manic to do this. Even when she's stable she does it a lot. It just has to be a stressful situation.

At any rate, I now have one more CBT type thing to tell myself while managing her: "Self, she's not lying, she's retconning. Don't get angry. Just explain."

Retconning isn't in the DSM-IV, but it certainly explains things she says as she's not the lying type. In fact, she's compulsively truth telling even when discrete lies would be much more advisable, which makes it all the more upsetting to have her "lying" about her past.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I'm having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I'm sure someone can correct me but I'm unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

Cagey beast may be talking about the respectability newly bestowed on transgenderism in the Anglosphere. The brazilian "travelos" have been a feature of the seedy sex underbelly in France for decades (Bois-De-Boulogne). Shemales prostitutes have been around for a very long time, but they belonged deep in the gutter.

During a one week research stay with the SFPD's homicide squad I commented to one of my hosts on how attractive the hookers in San Francisco were. He and his partner started laughing and told me the ones in the area of my hotel were all transvestites. The police regularly intervened in disputes between them and heterosexual clients who felt they'd been duped. Evidently these sometimes got quite ugly. BTW, I'm strictly heterosexual and am pretty discriminating about feminine pulchritude.

Hmm.

I’m sure that Eddie Murphy was shocked, shocked, shocked to learn that the damsel-in-distress to whom he so gallantly offered a ride turned out to be a transvestite.

I wonder if there are lots of kids in San Francisco who discover that their nannies are mannies:

Robin Williams was working on Mrs. Doubtfire 2 at the time of his death. He didn’t want to do it, but he needed the money – his ex-wives were sucking him dry. Yet another victory for feminists everywhere.

Faintly related–Germany got a new president. One of the voting delegates is a drag queen nominated by the greens, to be seen in the Daily Mail, another one is Anne Helm, an “antifa” that posed nude in Dresden thanking Bomber Harris for bombing the city, nominated by the socialists.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

You forgot to mention that you graduated top of your class in the Navy Seals, with special citations for gorilla combat.

My guess is that right-wingers are woke to the fact that white women are the most pampered, privileged, protected life form on this planet. If I actually could become female (a real fertile female, not a dude with his dick chopped off, and age fourteen, not my current age), why not?

Hemingway seems to have a "feminine" side to him that came out as he older - and crazier. He paid a lot of attention to his hair and wrote a draft novel The Garden of Eden that was "sensational for its revelation of Hemingway’s sudden and unexpected pre-occupation with transsexual fantasies, androgyny, and gender-merging."

Of course, one his sons was a full blown trans-sexual - Greg Hemingway also known as "Gloria Hemingway".

He paid a lot of attention to his hair

When he blew his brains out, the top half of his head was obliterated. So, in the end, all of that attention was for naught.

Of course, one his sons was a full blown trans-sexual – Greg Hemingway also known as “Gloria Hemingway”.

Software development is currently being overrun with trannies, usually the late-blooming variety.
It's really quite fascinating and suggests something about the work appealing to "male brains".

Hilariously, no one seems to notice that the most expedient way to improve the gender balance the field is to just have lots of the boys transition into girls. Boom. Job done.

Here’s some copy from an event in April hosted by USC for female* student hackers.
From the website Athenahackers.com

Trans and Non-Binary Welcome!

Can I Attend?
If are an undergraduate, graduate, or high school female* who loves to hack, the answer is YES! Women* in industry are welcome to mentor! If you identify as male, we’re sorry to say this hacking environment is not for you. This hackathon is about bringing women together in a comfortable setting.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

This is a topic somewhat outside of my main area of expertise in foreign policy, but I do have experience with this issue in my life. During the last couple months of our marriage, my ex-wife started transitioning into a man. Even though we were going thru a divorce at the time (She asked for one), I stuck by her side thru this process. This can be difficult for someone to go thru but it these people deserve our full loyalty and support in their decision, however difficult that may be.

Back to Steve's point, my ex-wife was extremely moral conservative and peace thru strength, having voted for Republicans all the way up until 2016, when she voted for Evan McMullin. She did not vote for the xenophobic, anti-war, anti-immigrant liberal democrat Donald Trump.

I definitely think Steve is on to something with liberals being immune to this natural process of transitioning to become yourself. Then again, liberals are pretty much enemies of liberty and normal-ness anyway, so what gives?

Coulter a jerk? Come on, the truth hurts. She was drinking the koolaid on the neocon invasion of the ME and championing Mitt Romneycare for prez in '12 but she 's right on immigration and she has learned you never apologize to the libprog media jackals.

In The Matrix the character Switch was portrayed in the film as simply a tall butch chick. Originally the character was to switch genders depending on whether xe was in or out of the matrix, hence the name. So this subject has seemingly been on Mz Wachowski's mind for some time.

Perhaps the 'matrix' Mz Wachowski wanted to wake up from was simply the gender xe was assigned at birth.

I doubt they were making a political statement, they just wanted to make a kick-ass sci-fi retelling of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. More likely the term "red pill" was co-opted by our side since the film serves as a powerful, accurate, and easily accessible metaphor for the Western world today.

The Matrix borrowed from quite a lot, including Japanese-y things like Ghost in the Shell. I don't know much about anime, so I won't comment on that. But I do know about Alice in Wonderland, which the movie referenced outright with a "white rabbit."

I also noticed similarities between The Matrix and Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, which is a dystopian novel about a world run (supposedly) by a benevolent supercomputer. It has a red pill/blue pill scene, and at one point the protagonist attacks the computer, only to discover that it had been attacked many times before and that those brave enough to try and smart enough to get there are invited to join the ruling class of programmers. Which is a lot like the second Matrix movie.

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of "right wing" politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don't really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

-----

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it's still quite apparent that they're jerks.

The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

Ann Coulter isn’t a jerk. She seems abrasive only because she actually appears in venues where she is hated and reviled. If YOU had to appear on Bill Maher’s show with his audience of brain-washed dullards you’d seem abrasive too.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies.

That sounds like complete bullshit. Not your story – the degree I mean. It sounds like getting a Ph.D. in bounty-hunting or bar-fighting. Some things don’t translate well into the classroom.

Do I brag about it? No, I don’t care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average.

Are you actually a member of MENSA? Because that would complete the picture. I haven’t met a Mensa member yet who wasn’t a complete and total douche-bag and an essentially worthless poseur.

The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

Ann Coulter isn't a jerk. She seems abrasive only because she actually appears in venues where she is hated and reviled. If YOU had to appear on Bill Maher's show with his audience of brain-washed dullards you'd seem abrasive too.

Nah, both Ross Douthat and Charles Murray have gone up against Maher (and won) without being abrasive.

Granted however that she has courage, as well as intelligence. She, Shapiro and Milo certainly have stamina as well. They’re still jerks, but that isn’t necessarily all bad.

OT: Steve, since you’re a pop music fan, how about a post on the grammy’s tonight and how the media have completely invented the really obvious fiction that Beyoncé is the biggest pop star in the world? Adele apologized to her for sweeping the big awards they were both up for, even though Adele out sold Beyoncé 20 million to 1.5 million.

Faintly related--Germany got a new president. One of the voting delegates is a drag queen nominated by the greens, to be seen in the Daily Mail, another one is Anne Helm, an "antifa" that posed nude in Dresden thanking Bomber Harris for bombing the city, nominated by the socialists.

OT: Steve, since you're a pop music fan, how about a post on the grammy's tonight and how the media have completely invented the really obvious fiction that Beyoncé is the biggest pop star in the world? Adele apologized to her for sweeping the big awards they were both up for, even though Adele out sold Beyoncé 20 million to 1.5 million.

To be fair my college educated, German Americsn husband thought that was still the national anthem of Germany.

OT but how does one accidentally sing “Deutchland Uber Alles?”

To be fair my college educated, German Americsn husband thought that was still the national anthem of Germany.

It is still the national anthem of Germany. You just aren’t supposed to sing the first two verses in public. The first verse is not really as “chauvinistic/nationalistic” as people like to claim, (it was really a 19th century call to unity) but it does claim a lot of land for Germany that now lies in Poland/Russia/Lithuania.

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of "right wing" politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don't really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

-----

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it's still quite apparent that they're jerks.

Media personalities generally tend to be jerks, whether on the right or left. You have to have a fairly narcissistic personality to keep pushing yourself on people, especially in the modern saturated environment where yelling louder and being more outrageous is the key to getting noticed.

This is true. A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable. The tranny recently led a walkout over some sort of SJW crusade but by then I'd moved on to JavaScript.

Yes, and this isn’t a very recent phenomenon. The guy/gal who devised the Arm instruction set transitioned in the ’80s.

Computing is another very masculine field of endeavour, albeit in a rather different way to sports or the military.

This tends to confirm that men who are more masculine in some way (brain structure/androgen load) are more prone to this.

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it’s still quite apparent that they’re jerks.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don’t see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

George Soros probably doesn't care about Communism one way or another. He just wants to bring down all of western society. I don't think being against the Russians in this day-and-age means one is anti-Communist. You should read more zerohedge.com. This guy is behind about everything that is against Americans, Europeans, and white males in general. Whatever it takes, he'll do it, as long as he can make money on it. If you read the comments on almost any conservative web-site, you will realize that most people really want this guy to croak-off prontomundo for lots of good reasons.

(Oh, and he's probably the AntiChrist to boot, if that's of any concern to you.)

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist.

Only because - apparently - the Communists were anti-nationalist in the wrong way. Soros is a globalist, dedicated to undermining national identity and traditional culture.

(although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Ah, the usual smear. We must all be Russian stooges.......presumably because we don't see how being anti-Russian is in our interests. You guys always pull this one out. Who is funding YOUR political movement?

Well, I already wasted my time rehashing conservative history to a troll, but you've posted here before so we know you're real, so...

Soros has given a lot of money to left-wing groups over the past few decades, basically being a left-wing equivalent to the Koch brothers; in particular Black Lives Matter, immigration, refugee acceptance, and European integration annoy people here, though he's also advocated for softer drug policy and easier euthanasia, among other things. (He also happens to be Jewish.)

I won't deny the whole Russian connection; I don't see why Trump should be so fond of Putin unless Putin has something on him, and I don't see supporting Russia as being in any way sensible (though of course irritating them over gay rights is totally pointless and counterproductive). But I do think getting immigration under control is going to be the more important issue for the long-term viability of the nation. Compare, say, Uruguay and Venezuela. Lesser of two evils.

I had thought of replying to you in detail, and as others have said, you are not a troll account. But then I thought that you have given such an easy layup to loads of people on here re: Soros that they would not be able to resist taking the bait. Good work guys. There's an hour of my life I never had to give up.

The first exception that comes to mind is Brianna Wu (birth name John Flynt), the game designer who briefly was in the news during the 'gamergate' controversy and is now running for congress in Massachusetts. She has very conventional left identity politics views.

But she also must be one of the most extreme examples of the media "War on Noticing". She doesn't identify as transgender, so no article about her in any respectable publication mentions the fact that she is transgender, despite the fact that she very obviously is not a biological female in her appearance or voice:

As one who has encountered, first hand, much “transgenderism” in academic and “social justice” environments, I have come to believe that for some, perhaps even many, there really is serious emotional and mental disturbance. Here is the adult mother of a 14 year old "boy to girl transgender" (who has been highly sexualized, as the photographs will show) who now reveals that she too (the adult married female biological mother of 6 children) is a transgender "man" and, with testosterone and surgery, is transitioning from "woman to man.”

Mother of transgender girl reveals she is now also transitioning into a MAN

Erica House, a mother-of-six from Detroit Michigan, proudly supported her daughter Corey after she revealed she was a transgender girl .
A year after she surprised Corey with her first estrogen prescription, Erica is living as a man named Eric.
Eric said his husband Les and their children have been completely supportive of him and his transition.
Eric has been taking testosterone since February, and he hopes to have tops surgery to remove his breasts next month.

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender "support group" that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one's biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a "you are transgender" and here is how you can be even "more" transgender, get hormones, get surgery. Transgenderism has become somewhat of a secular “religion” and while many religions do no harm, others become dangerous and some even become a cult. I recognize the trajectory of “transgenderism.”

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender “support group” that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one’s biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a “you are transgender” and here is how you can be even “more” transgender, get hormones, get surgery.

4thWaveNow, a site that bills itself as, “A community of parents & friends skeptical of the “transgender child/teen” trend”, contains much documentation and discussion of exactly what you have described. I discovered the site thanks to an iSteve commenter posting it here back in May. Particularly remarkable about the 4thWaveNow site is that it was created by “a left-leaning parent”. And, from the admittedly limited perusing I have done of the site, it would appear that at least most of those who post there are “respectables” who, at least for the most part, have bought into the rest of the “LGB” Doctrine and agenda.

I must say that perhaps the single greatest misgiving I have had about now-President Trump since the campaign and continue to have is his atrocious record in this entire area of “‘LGBTQ’ issues”. And now comes this:

(I must point-out that the way Ivanka is dressed in the photo itself contradicts her purported embrace of Orthodox Judaism. The “rabbis” who performed her “conversion” are known, at the very least, for being at the left-most fringes of what can even be called “Orthodox”. How naive does one have to be not to see that this was a “conversion” of convenience, for the obvious purpose of being able to claim that the marriage was kosher.)

Is no one else concerned over President Trump's continued pandering to the "LGBTQ" mafia? (See links in previous post of mine that this is in reply-to)

Throughout the campaign and up until the present, I have witnessed a disturbing silence on this matter-- even from unapologetic traditionalists who, in the past, have been exceptional for speaking-out against said lobby and its pernicious agenda.

Even the grotesque spectacle, during this past summer's Republican Convention, of Peter Thiel championing the "LGBTQ" cause while blaming social conservatives for starting the Culture Wars* (to great applause, no less) seems to have generated little of the reaction I would have expected.

(*As at least some here know, he had it backwards; It was Thiel's fellow Sodomites and the Cultural Marxists who attacked and began raping what has been the very foundation of society for the entire history of humanity. It was they who, at least figuratively, started raping our children by targeting them, en masse, for indoctrination and conditioning. We (to the extent we have) were defending against this assault. And, alas, our defense has been nowhere near as powerful, devoted or effective as their continued, relentless onslaught.)

As I have seen mentioned in at least several comments in this thread, President Trump is accused of being too cozy with Russia's Vladimir Putin. Whether or not such charges have any validity or merit, I do not know. (And, in the overall scheme of things, can't say I really care that much either.) I do know, however, that one area that I only wish our President would follow Putin's lead in is in outlawing all "LGBTQ" indoctrination of children and adolescents. If you really insist, let consenting adults bugger each other behind closed doors (though there is a strong public health argument for not allowing even that much) but don't anyone dare tell innocent, impressionable youth the dangerous, manifest falsehood that such degenerate behavior is at all equivalent to normative heterosexuality in any form, let alone sacred matrimony. (And if you're going to present graphic information about homosexual acts at all, to anyone, then daggonnit!, you'd better be sure to include alternatives such as Frot (GRAPHIC CONTENT) and intercrural that, if nothing else, are, on numerous counts, at least considerably lesser evils-- far less likely to do lasting or irreparable harm-- than the buggery that the "Gay" Mafia persistently promotes and encourages.)

Not convinced by the political theory – I suspect issues in the selection and characterisation of cases – but the important thing is the recognition of the delusional nature of this phenomenon.

In all cases except for a vanishingly tiny number with real physical issues, those who are unable to fit themselves into the gender roles of conventional society are just indisciplined or delusional. The appropriate response is not medicalisation and pandering, but a metaphorical slap to the face and an exhortation to “pull yourself together”. And the rubbish about being “a girl trapped in a man’s body” (or vice versa) is just self-indulgent hippy nonsense.

These people need to make their minds up about whether or not there is any such thing as essential femaleness distinct from maleness, or not. If there is no such thing then how can anyone be “a woman trapped in a man’s body”, or vice versa, at all? And if there are fundamental differences, then what is wrong with society recognising that men and women are inherently different?

For those who don’t know, Jennifer Finney Boylan was originally James Boylan, born in 1958, and a professor at Colby College, married (to a woman) and with two sons, when he transitioned. He/She wrote an autobiography in 2003 called “She’s Not There: A Life in Two Genders,” which I read some years ago.

I had read that book some time before I encountered Steve’s thoughts on the transgender phenomenon, and there were a lot of warning signs in that. Boylan had a big cross-dressing fetish, dressing in girly clothes from an early age. When Boylan switched genders, he was all like, “I still like girls, so I’m a lesbian now.” (He did say his wife was upset at first, with her saying that this was now what she had signed up for; they reconciled and are still married, as far as I know, but he really glosses over his wife’s feelings due to his self-absorption.)

But the part that really struck me was Boylan talking about being in transgender group therapy, and how one of the other transsexuals (compared to him, poorer, less well-educated, and less able to pass) committed suicide. It’s such a sad and tragic thing, that violence to one’s self, what his comrade did to herself, and yet he passes right by it with little reflection, being at that point so excited about becoming a woman.

Ann Coulter may be smart and talented, but she is also abrasive as hell. Denying the obvious only makes you look like an idiot.

She doesn’t sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don’t let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That’s why Trump uses twitter a lot probably – it takes a while for the really good comeback – one based on fact – to come to him. I can’t say I’d be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again – “Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they’re runnin’ out of you!”)

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive – as Boomstick replied about her being charming when “not in the fray”, I guess that means as long as you don’t give her crap and spew out lies to her, she’d be nice to be around (but, she’s obviously not your type).

Let Thursday alone. He remarked once that he finds Coulter abrasive, but everyone is reacting as if he made post after post insisting upon it and refuting anyone who disagrees. Don't treat him like he's some kind of argumentative asshole; he hates that sort of person.

"Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive."

Coulter was banished from National Review shortly after 9/11 when she said that we should invade Middle Eastern countries and convert them (presumably via force) to Christianity. Everyone thought she was crazy. Then Bush invaded two Muslim countries without converting them to Christianity - or even challenging most of the cultural mores - and we all learned what Coulter already knew. There's no fixing those places until you force them to abandon their Dark Age religion, and the modern West simply does not have the cojones to do that.

Too many conservatives apologize when viciously attacked for voicing conservative truths. Coulter's strength is that she never does.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

George Soros probably doesn’t care about Communism one way or another. He just wants to bring down all of western society. I don’t think being against the Russians in this day-and-age means one is anti-Communist. You should read more zerohedge.com. This guy is behind about everything that is against Americans, Europeans, and white males in general. Whatever it takes, he’ll do it, as long as he can make money on it. If you read the comments on almost any conservative web-site, you will realize that most people really want this guy to croak-off prontomundo for lots of good reasons.

(Oh, and he’s probably the AntiChrist to boot, if that’s of any concern to you.)

She doesn't sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don't let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That's why Trump uses twitter a lot probably - it takes a while for the really good comeback - one based on fact - to come to him. I can't say I'd be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again - "Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they're runnin' out of you!")

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she's not abrasive - as Boomstick replied about her being charming when "not in the fray", I guess that means as long as you don't give her crap and spew out lies to her, she'd be nice to be around (but, she's obviously not your type).

If Trump had lost, I was going to recommend to Ann that she run for President in 2020.

Yeah, I'd honestly rather have had Ann, and this from a guy who doesn't think women should even be voting. If she could have gotten elected, she would have done a great job. As I mentioned earlier, she has much more knowledge of the current political, economic, whatever situation in America than Mr. Trump, and is a much better debater (if anyone, who's a bigger jerk anyway, Miss Coulter or Mr. Trump?)

I would hope the first thing a President Coulter would do is push for the states to ratify the repeal of Amendment 19 of the US Constitution. I'd be her point man on this (with benefits - no, "I'm not in love ... it's just a silly phase I'm going through...")

This is true. A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable. The tranny recently led a walkout over some sort of SJW crusade but by then I'd moved on to JavaScript.

> A Ruby programming podcast brought in a tranny a while ago and it made the show unlistenable.

I know exactly who you’re talking about. The podcast host recently devoted an episode to trying to figure out why his audience figures have been declining and what he could do to fix it. It was embarrassing.

I too ended up moving on from that particular language community, btw.

In other news: that same tranny recently joined a company that’s been collecting SJWs like Pokémons. Morale among the most experience engineees has declined precipitously. Hmmm.

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

Here’s another transgender example that fits into the pattern that Steve has written about.

Jennell Jaquays (born 1956) was originally Paul Jaquays, and as a young man, he had some prominence writing Dungeons & Dragons adventure modules and game materials for Judges Guild (one of many companies at that time which sprang up in the wake of TSR’s success with D&D, around the late 1970s to early 1980s). Paul/Jennell continued working in the gaming industry, including table-top games, video game designs, and fantasy art illustrations. He/she got married and sired two children; after his reassignment, she is now a lesbian and is now in a relationship with a different woman.

Of course, as a fantasy role-playing game, you can create whatever race and gender you want for your player character (PC). In practice, this can lead to some awkwardness at the gaming table, if you’re a male player with a female PC, and you get too carried away with the role-playing. At any rate, D&D has something like an 80/20 split between male and female players.

And as a fantasy game where magic exists, anything can happen to your character. You could get polymorphed by an evil wizard (and not just turned into a frog), or cursed by an evil high priest. If you turn to p. 145 of your 1st edition Dungeon Master’s Guide, there is such a thing as the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity, a cursed magic item which will change the character’s gender to the opposite one. On the other hand, as an elven or human maid of pure heart and good alignment, you can also get a unicorn as a mount (see p. 98 of the 1st edition Monster Manual).

It's pretty obvious that Ms. Coulter has a very abrasive (and masculine) personality. I guess some conservative guys are masochists. To each their own.

For what is worth, I saw Ann Coulter live once at an event at a (very liberal) college. The event was organized by the local Republican students. The crowd was small, and Ann made a couple of cracks about the half-empty audience that didn’t sit well, at least for me. What did she expect at a liberal College? And how was that the fault of the people who went there just to listen to her? But maybe she was just having a bad day.

That said, she has a lot of charisma, and I like her writings, and she is very talented and brave. I think she does have a masculine personality, more than many supposed men. Also she never married or had kids, but I don’t know the reasons for that.

A lot of high-IQ, masculine middle-aged men a century or so ago were imperialists out in the bush. Men like Baden-Powell, Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener were life-long bachelors (Baden-Powell married in his 60s). They were all crypto-homosexual: Kitchener enjoyed anal sex with both sexes, Baden-Powell had an obviously homoerotic liking for military camp life and Rhodes had lots of romantic crushes on younger men.

If they didn't have empires to conquer, would they have restrained their urges? They repressed their sex lives, but if they had been around in the 21st century they might have spiralled into transsexualism or weirder things, just as other imperialists such as Erskine Childers or Francis Younghusband went from the Empire to Theosophy or Irish nationalism. Jan / James Morris actually brought the news of Hillary's ascent of Everest to the Queen: she / he is now a Welsh nationalist!

To understand homosexuality in the British Empire and their colonies, one must understand the British upper-class “public” school system that isolated the sexes from age 7 through their university years. It probably didn’t help that upper-class British boys also wore dresses when toddlers.

In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, homosexuality was often called the “English disease”. In spite of recurrent sex scandals involving pedophilia that continue to be shoved under the rug, nothing seems to have changed except that graduates of the British upper-class “public” school system can now cavort in public?

(Originally published in England under the title "The Public School Phenomenon, 597-1977.")

Brief excerpt from page 45:

Certainly some of the phraseology is rather suggestive: "tart" for favourite at 17th-century Winchester, for example; and at many schools boys shared beds until quite old. Eton founding statutes stopped this at fourteen; but Westminster in 1560 stated that they must sleep two to a bed, and at Harrow the scholars slept together in beds till 1805. We have seen Udall move straight from prison for buggery to a headmastership. To a considerable degree, however, the boys gained their experience in the rumbustious, immoral, whore-ridden world of the towns the schools were set in.

This is the book referenced at the end of the following quote, which is from an excellent John Derbyshire piece from 2001:

Christopher Hitchens in the New York Review of Books (9/21/00), writing about English boys'-boarding-school homosexuality: "Mutual and manual gratification is the rule. The employment of orifices risks the imputation of unmanliness." (Though nobody should venture into this particular neck of the woods without packing Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy's definitive book The Public School Phenomenon, which has much, much more to say on the topic.)

Derbyshire goes on to cite other examples of (active) male homosexuality that did/do not, typically at least, involve buggery (i.e., anal penetration). All of these, including the quote above, follow the quote below which itself seems rather apropos, even if only tangentially, to the original topic of this iSteve thread:

More to the point than any of these, however, is a widespread revulsion, found in both genders, all times and all places and cultures, towards the man who plays the part of a woman. There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated -- [...]

In this vein, a web site that I am keen to cite (with the disclaimer that doing so should not be construed as endorsement on my part and the caveat that it contains highly graphic content), because it represents a point-of-view so rarely heard and so vehemently and even viciously opposed by the Buggery Lobby is that of Bill Weintraub's Man2Man Alliance. As emphatically anti-buggery as he is pro-homoerotic, Weintraub coined the term "Frot" for the non-penetrative, phallus-on-phallus act that he promotes not only as a far safer alternative to buggery but as what he argues is the true, natural, egalitarian and dignified form of male homosexual intercourse.

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

Yes, there is a lot of sexual weirdness in the alt-right. I had never heard of traps until the rise of frog twitter and Milo made a video answering whether traps were gay.
What is a trap?
And is this such a big problem that guys are asking this?
And at least one person out there really didn’t know the answer?

Then there are the trannie stars on frog twitter. The most popular seems to be young and gay, yet more of a masculine nerdy type.
(Similar to him, one of my followers, not a trannie, but masculine gay(?) type loves the rare occasion I tweet out pro-male stuff, like acknowledging some of their adorable peculiarities).

And then you have to be careful about who you follow because gay and she-male (also never heard of) porn, non-ironically, gets thrown into your timeline.

I’m just a nice, Christian mom, but, Lord have mercy, alt-right twitter has given me an education; I’ve been on the internet since 1999.

Finally, I did a lot of googling one day on what do liberal men think of xyz, and it’s impossible to know: they just don’t talk, or have strong feelings about, sexual stuff “as liberals”. Every odd and peculiar sexual phenomenon you can think of: beta male rage (with their manifestos), incels, MGTOW, manosphere, PUA,trannies, traps, etc., is associated with the Right.
It’s like rightist guys have something on their chests and they need to get it off, and at length, NOW.

Its largely because liberal men have been pretty much browbeaten into submission not to speak. The men on the new Right are usually unhappy with some aspect of modernity - I certainly was - and wanted to reach out to other guys to understand why, and how I could fix it.

I’m a man who’s dealt with this issue every day of my life, so I can lend some extra knowledge in the field.

There might be some latent genetic data in women from when the two sexes were one. These seem to be most prevalent in masculine, XXY chromosome women and can be distinguished through a simple genetic test. We can probably all agree that they deserve a category of some kind. For example, there are Dominican girls who become boys during puberty.

I’m not convinced that Southeast Asian cultures like Thailand and the Philippines which allow some men to transition into women have any basis in genetics. It could be that societies with fewer cosmetic differences between the sexes, in ancient order style, will opt to just flip a kid to a new category than deal with anomalies. And he’ll probably end up a sex worker for tourists. That’s a level of hell I’d never wish upon anybody.

Men almost always transition due to libido, not due to his being a woman inside. If it were the latter, you’d see higher rates of adoption among them, but that’s rarely of interest for male-to-females (mtfs). The greatest concern for them is looking like women, the object of their attraction since most mtfs start out straight. The hotter the look, the better the orgasm. Obviously, becoming a woman is an impossible task in the end, particularly for masculine men. They end up dumping their wives and kids, moving to other states, getting reassignment surgery, and sinking into depression. The final act is removing the thing that gives you carnal pleasure.

Mtfs are almost always left without a woman. Most mtfs start out straight, but chicks don’t really like these guys, even though they’ll verbally support their endeavors. It’s also a major source of embarrassment for the feminine women you are attracted to and modeled yourself off in the first place. They ultimately don’t want to be seen with you in public. So you end up either sucking it up and dating a lesbian who will make you feel like shit until you dump her, a man who’s into that kind of thing, or you get into porn. They’re all levels of hell I managed to avoid because I never transitioned irreversibly.

The process looks almost like a case of possession. But it’s one with no exorcists, only institutions facilitating the possession, ultimately mutilating the body until there’s no remnant of the old person remaining.

The Male-to-Female Transition Pipeline should be a huge cause for concern for the Right because it’s going to hit our kids hard. First thing is we need to stop fetishizing trans people because they’re in serious need of help. If they’re post-op, they need to be on suicide watch.

Just to stir the pot, I seem to recollect that Hemingway had some feminine fantasies, expressed as a fascination for cross dressing and long, feminine hair, both high on his fetish list as letters reveal, Perhaps they made the earth for him. And didn't one of his sons end up being a famous cross-dresser. well, way above my pay grade, I'm stuck down here among the proles with thoughts of long-stemmed Japanese gals in dark stockings and heels!

If Trump had lost, I was going to recommend to Ann that she run for President in 2020.

Yeah, I’d honestly rather have had Ann, and this from a guy who doesn’t think women should even be voting. If she could have gotten elected, she would have done a great job. As I mentioned earlier, she has much more knowledge of the current political, economic, whatever situation in America than Mr. Trump, and is a much better debater (if anyone, who’s a bigger jerk anyway, Miss Coulter or Mr. Trump?)

I would hope the first thing a President Coulter would do is push for the states to ratify the repeal of Amendment 19 of the US Constitution. I’d be her point man on this (with benefits – no, “I’m not in love … it’s just a silly phase I’m going through…“)

Don't know, but an obsession with military history is not big on, say, NPR.

So why would it by (presumably) high testosterone older men who are more likely to decide they are transgendered? Testosterone tends to fall in men as they age. Could a dramatic drop in testosterone levels cause that?

So why would it by (presumably) high testosterone older men who are more likely to decide they are transgendered? Testosterone tends to fall in men as they age. Could a dramatic drop in testosterone levels cause that?

I thought that long term use of steroids can render a man's own testosterone production dormant (the shrunken strawberry effect), so that after he stops dosing he may not be able to return to a baseline commensurate with the testosterone production of a healthy man of his age who did not use steroids?

She doesn't sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don't let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That's why Trump uses twitter a lot probably - it takes a while for the really good comeback - one based on fact - to come to him. I can't say I'd be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again - "Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they're runnin' out of you!")

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she's not abrasive - as Boomstick replied about her being charming when "not in the fray", I guess that means as long as you don't give her crap and spew out lies to her, she'd be nice to be around (but, she's obviously not your type).

Let Thursday alone. He remarked once that he finds Coulter abrasive, but everyone is reacting as if he made post after post insisting upon it and refuting anyone who disagrees. Don’t treat him like he’s some kind of argumentative asshole; he hates that sort of person.

He won't quit. I told him that I don't find her to be a jerk at all. That's my opinion, and therefore, it's right (to me). The guy's gotta go on and on about it and call me idiot for saying she's not a jerk. There's no hard definition. I figured Thursday was a left-winger, as that's the type that would find truth-telling and standing up for oneself as a conservative "abrasive". However, he sounds libertarian now, which is all cool with me.

Oh, I looked above and maybe he didn't get my Jerk-Store joke. Well, "Jerk Store is the line, and I'm stickin' with it!" It's from Seinfeld, and if you don't get it, Thursday, I apologize for that. Your insults make no sense at all to me either.

She doesn't sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don't let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That's why Trump uses twitter a lot probably - it takes a while for the really good comeback - one based on fact - to come to him. I can't say I'd be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again - "Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they're runnin' out of you!")

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she's not abrasive - as Boomstick replied about her being charming when "not in the fray", I guess that means as long as you don't give her crap and spew out lies to her, she'd be nice to be around (but, she's obviously not your type).

“Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive.”

Coulter was banished from National Review shortly after 9/11 when she said that we should invade Middle Eastern countries and convert them (presumably via force) to Christianity. Everyone thought she was crazy. Then Bush invaded two Muslim countries without converting them to Christianity – or even challenging most of the cultural mores – and we all learned what Coulter already knew. There’s no fixing those places until you force them to abandon their Dark Age religion, and the modern West simply does not have the cojones to do that.

Too many conservatives apologize when viciously attacked for voicing conservative truths. Coulter’s strength is that she never does.

I agree with your basic point, Wilkey (well, of course, you agreed with me first ;-} However, I didn't like Ann Coulter when she was one with the neocon crowd overall and just a GOP booster "Go Red Team!" I only started liking her a lot when she got on the immigration thing.

Really, I don't know how serious she was when she said that back in 2001, and yes I do remember it. Where I agree with you is that, yes, then the Bush administration with the backing of a lot of American people started that "spreading democracy" crap (minus the religious conversion part), and it was never going to work, and we had no business doing it. Possibly, Coulter realized, along with a lot of others, that we could at least keep these people out of our country.

For the neocons, however, that is not their real goal - to care about traditional America, so this is where the split came. Back in the National Review days, I think they were just too PC to let Coulter's 2001 rant stand, that's all. They probably mostly agreed with it.

She has been on fire, pundit-wise, for the last 5 years or so, when she started (probably 2/3 of her columns) on the immigration problem.

Yeah, she doesn't apologize for what she knows is right She probably should about the one thing - invading the middle east to change them (usually it's just women who want to change everyone - are these neo-cons possibly all just women in men's bodies - it's possible, and maybe they all just haven't completed their paperwork? Just sayin' man, and also, I'm getting back to the topic of Steve's post which I don't really care about, in this particular case, sorry Steve.)

For the most part, Muslim conquerors did not forcibly convert conquered Christians and Jews but instead they placed them under various economic and civil disabilities while being a Muslim brought benefits, so it was advantageous to convert. Hell, in America we now have people "converting" to black or female so switching religions is a piece of cake by comparison. If we still had civilizational confidence we could have done the same in the Middle East. Many people (esp. the elites) will agree that "Paris is worth a Mass" if you make it worth their while.

Yes, there is a lot of sexual weirdness in the alt-right. I had never heard of traps until the rise of frog twitter and Milo made a video answering whether traps were gay.
What is a trap?
And is this such a big problem that guys are asking this?
And at least one person out there really didn't know the answer?

Then there are the trannie stars on frog twitter. The most popular seems to be young and gay, yet more of a masculine nerdy type.
(Similar to him, one of my followers, not a trannie, but masculine gay(?) type loves the rare occasion I tweet out pro-male stuff, like acknowledging some of their adorable peculiarities).

And then you have to be careful about who you follow because gay and she-male (also never heard of) porn, non-ironically, gets thrown into your timeline.

I'm just a nice, Christian mom, but, Lord have mercy, alt-right twitter has given me an education; I've been on the internet since 1999.

Finally, I did a lot of googling one day on what do liberal men think of xyz, and it's impossible to know: they just don't talk, or have strong feelings about, sexual stuff "as liberals". Every odd and peculiar sexual phenomenon you can think of: beta male rage (with their manifestos), incels, MGTOW, manosphere, PUA,trannies, traps, etc., is associated with the Right.
It's like rightist guys have something on their chests and they need to get it off, and at length, NOW.

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist.

Only because – apparently – the Communists were anti-nationalist in the wrong way. Soros is a globalist, dedicated to undermining national identity and traditional culture.

(although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Ah, the usual smear. We must all be Russian stooges…….presumably because we don’t see how being anti-Russian is in our interests. You guys always pull this one out. Who is funding YOUR political movement?

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Well, I already wasted my time rehashing conservative history to a troll, but you’ve posted here before so we know you’re real, so…

Soros has given a lot of money to left-wing groups over the past few decades, basically being a left-wing equivalent to the Koch brothers; in particular Black Lives Matter, immigration, refugee acceptance, and European integration annoy people here, though he’s also advocated for softer drug policy and easier euthanasia, among other things. (He also happens to be Jewish.)

I won’t deny the whole Russian connection; I don’t see why Trump should be so fond of Putin unless Putin has something on him, and I don’t see supporting Russia as being in any way sensible (though of course irritating them over gay rights is totally pointless and counterproductive). But I do think getting immigration under control is going to be the more important issue for the long-term viability of the nation. Compare, say, Uruguay and Venezuela. Lesser of two evils.

Yes, there is a lot of sexual weirdness in the alt-right. I had never heard of traps until the rise of frog twitter and Milo made a video answering whether traps were gay.
What is a trap?
And is this such a big problem that guys are asking this?
And at least one person out there really didn't know the answer?

Then there are the trannie stars on frog twitter. The most popular seems to be young and gay, yet more of a masculine nerdy type.
(Similar to him, one of my followers, not a trannie, but masculine gay(?) type loves the rare occasion I tweet out pro-male stuff, like acknowledging some of their adorable peculiarities).

And then you have to be careful about who you follow because gay and she-male (also never heard of) porn, non-ironically, gets thrown into your timeline.

I'm just a nice, Christian mom, but, Lord have mercy, alt-right twitter has given me an education; I've been on the internet since 1999.

Finally, I did a lot of googling one day on what do liberal men think of xyz, and it's impossible to know: they just don't talk, or have strong feelings about, sexual stuff "as liberals". Every odd and peculiar sexual phenomenon you can think of: beta male rage (with their manifestos), incels, MGTOW, manosphere, PUA,trannies, traps, etc., is associated with the Right.
It's like rightist guys have something on their chests and they need to get it off, and at length, NOW.

Now liberal women, unlike liberal men...

Its largely because liberal men have been pretty much browbeaten into submission not to speak. The men on the new Right are usually unhappy with some aspect of modernity – I certainly was – and wanted to reach out to other guys to understand why, and how I could fix it.

"Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive."

Coulter was banished from National Review shortly after 9/11 when she said that we should invade Middle Eastern countries and convert them (presumably via force) to Christianity. Everyone thought she was crazy. Then Bush invaded two Muslim countries without converting them to Christianity - or even challenging most of the cultural mores - and we all learned what Coulter already knew. There's no fixing those places until you force them to abandon their Dark Age religion, and the modern West simply does not have the cojones to do that.

Too many conservatives apologize when viciously attacked for voicing conservative truths. Coulter's strength is that she never does.

I agree with your basic point, Wilkey (well, of course, you agreed with me first ;-} However, I didn’t like Ann Coulter when she was one with the neocon crowd overall and just a GOP booster “Go Red Team!” I only started liking her a lot when she got on the immigration thing.

Really, I don’t know how serious she was when she said that back in 2001, and yes I do remember it. Where I agree with you is that, yes, then the Bush administration with the backing of a lot of American people started that “spreading democracy” crap (minus the religious conversion part), and it was never going to work, and we had no business doing it. Possibly, Coulter realized, along with a lot of others, that we could at least keep these people out of our country.

For the neocons, however, that is not their real goal – to care about traditional America, so this is where the split came. Back in the National Review days, I think they were just too PC to let Coulter’s 2001 rant stand, that’s all. They probably mostly agreed with it.

She has been on fire, pundit-wise, for the last 5 years or so, when she started (probably 2/3 of her columns) on the immigration problem.

Yeah, she doesn’t apologize for what she knows is right She probably should about the one thing – invading the middle east to change them (usually it’s just women who want to change everyone – are these neo-cons possibly all just women in men’s bodies – it’s possible, and maybe they all just haven’t completed their paperwork? Just sayin’ man, and also, I’m getting back to the topic of Steve’s post which I don’t really care about, in this particular case, sorry Steve.)

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

You should read Soros’ own words on the Open Society Foundation. He has all of the marks of someone who might have had good intentions, but has seriously gone into Bond Villainy territory.

“My Open Societies failed in Africa three times, and this is proof that the entire world must change before utopia can be achieved. Therefore, I set about this goal.”

Does he take finasteride? I've noticed that since taking it, both my head hair is thicker and has gained back some ground that had receded, but also that my body hair seems less developed in places like back, shoulders, arms, stomach, etc. I had hoped for this latter effect, so I am not sure whether it is placebo or not. I have heard of others having this happen (and it probably should, since it is DHT that is causing it to advance in the first place). Re: the head hair, definitely not placebo.

As you get older, especially into your 60s, you produce less T so naturally less DHT. If what is happening with the finasteride is true (less DHT means less body hair), then one would expect that to happen with a decrease in DHT through less T.

"During a full blown episode I had no recollection of having thought differently when well."

That's a pretty common aspect of a lot of different mental troubles: the brain retcons its own memories to coincide with current feelings.

My playing football for Harvard despite no athletic scholarship or working my way up to Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army despite inheriting a billion dollars just shows how desperately I must have been trying to cover up.

My wife’s been bipolar the 26 years I’ve known her. She also has a great ability to retcon her memories to suit what she currently believes. I had never thought of it in the terms you stated. Mostly, it exasperated me to have to say, “No, this is what happened” and then deal with her denials: “I never / never would have / I can’t believe I would have.” She doesn’t have to be actively manic to do this. Even when she’s stable she does it a lot. It just has to be a stressful situation.

At any rate, I now have one more CBT type thing to tell myself while managing her: “Self, she’s not lying, she’s retconning. Don’t get angry. Just explain.”

Retconning isn’t in the DSM-IV, but it certainly explains things she says as she’s not the lying type. In fact, she’s compulsively truth telling even when discrete lies would be much more advisable, which makes it all the more upsetting to have her “lying” about her past.

Retconning -- a term from the comic book industry for "retroactive continuity" or rewriting a fictional universe's past to fit what you feel like doing in the present -- might be a pretty useful concept for psychologists.

People who are, for example, depressed sometimes have a hard time remembering they've ever been happy. In turn, that contributes to further depression.

In a slightly different variant. I knew somebody who after a certain age couldn't remember happy memories the next day. He'd go home from a dinner party or whatever all smiles, but the next morning could only remember uncomfortable moments from the evening before.

That's, perhaps, a little bit different from the more common retconning of past memories to fit current mood, in that it seems like it was driven by an actual defect of memory that only retained in long term memory recollections of negative emotions and forgot all memories of positive emotions. It didn't seem to be driven as much by current mood as by an inability to retain overnight positive long term memories, leaving only negative memories the next day.

I've never heard of this being known to psychology. I don't know whether it's extremely rare or if psychologists just lack a conceptual framework that keeps them from noticing it.

All women do that, and most of the time it is lying. We make ourselves feel better by calling it unconscious manipulation, or whatever, but it's lying. It's a very womanly way to lie, and goes right along with men's capacity for rationalization. Which might be unconscious and in some cases innocent.

However, in general I say the onus is on people to check themselves and ensure they're not pulling stuff out of their asses to help their case. Because if you don't check yourself regularly, you're being negligent. Negligent "retconning" (there has to be a less internet-y term for this) or rationalization is lying, plainly and simply.

Now, if you happen to be mentally ill and can't control yourself, that's different. Just bear in mind, regular women do this too. All the time! It's part of their nature.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

“America” in the abstract might be able to deal with the loss of life. But if my husband died it would devastate me and our children, and irrevocably change our lives for the worse. I’d have no more children. I’d live out the rest of my life alone. We’d be substantially poorer. My kids probably wouldn’t even remember their father, as they are so young. People who die of terror attacks aren’t numbers. They have spouses and children and families that love them and rely on them and depend on them. They aren’t just fungible people-units.

She doesn't sound abrasive at all. I like listening to people who don't let themselves get lied to by the LP without answer. She just gives back as good as she gets, like, say, Donald Trump (though he really has neither the quick a wit nor the knowledge that Ann has to give the right comeback at the right time. That's why Trump uses twitter a lot probably - it takes a while for the really good comeback - one based on fact - to come to him. I can't say I'd be any quicker either, as I often think of the right response about 2 hours later, like George Costanza. In fact, here it is again - "Hey Thursday, the Joke Store just twittered that they're runnin' out of you!")

Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she's not abrasive - as Boomstick replied about her being charming when "not in the fray", I guess that means as long as you don't give her crap and spew out lies to her, she'd be nice to be around (but, she's obviously not your type).

One can find lots of virtues in Ann Coulter: courage, intelligence, even humour. But the resistance to the obvious (she is also highly abrasive) is starting to get really perverse.

"Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive."

Coulter was banished from National Review shortly after 9/11 when she said that we should invade Middle Eastern countries and convert them (presumably via force) to Christianity. Everyone thought she was crazy. Then Bush invaded two Muslim countries without converting them to Christianity - or even challenging most of the cultural mores - and we all learned what Coulter already knew. There's no fixing those places until you force them to abandon their Dark Age religion, and the modern West simply does not have the cojones to do that.

Too many conservatives apologize when viciously attacked for voicing conservative truths. Coulter's strength is that she never does.

Invading the entire Middle East would have been a disaster, no matter what, even if our intentions were to convert everyone.

"Invading the entire Middle East would have been a disaster, no matter what, even if our intentions were to convert everyone."

I agree entirely. My point was that Coulter seems to have understood, or at least had an inkling, that invasion was doomed to failure unless we changed their religion. That was a necessary, though probably not sufficient, condition for fixing the Middle East.

The NR folks who drove out Coulter but pushed for the war hadn't a clue what they were doing.

Invading the entire ME was out of the question--as converting the entire Muslim ME to Christianity was out if the question. It's amazing that supposedly intelligent people cannot understand Coulter's point, i.e. you're NOT going to win (the war, hearts and minds, whatever) unless you convert them, and since you're NOT going to convert them, don't even try--don't invade, don't start a war.

Overthrowing the Sunni Muslim minority Saddam Hussein, to be replaced by someone from the Shia Muslim majority would accomplish what exactly? To be an American puppet?

Why don’t they care? Poor-to-poorish white people. I lived in Oroville for 2 years. My father is buried there. Surprise, surprise — a big meth problem, too. When I was there 25 years ago, the Mayor called Oroville the “armpit of Butte County” and recommended renaming it “Lake Oroville” to emphasize the positive attributes of the area–namely, fishing and recreation (provided by the dam).

Oroville has only two claims to fame of which I’m aware…the last wild Indjin, “Ishi”, stumbled out of the woods at Oroville in 1911. In a way, the last indian to surrender to the white man (aside from Cher). My cousin, who also lived in Oroville, liked to joke that the general condition of the area might be described as “Ishi’s Revenge”. The second claim to fame is that Aaron Rodgers briefly attended Butte College in Oroville, though he lived in nearby Chico.

But first term Obama went almost entirely undiagnosed as a homophobe and hater. Interesting that Obama’s firm belief in state’s rights to determine marriage didn’t motivate him to speak out against a Supreme Court ruling that took away a state’s right to decide on marriage, a right that he seemed to cherish dearly in this video. The left believes in principles only to the extent that they can help bring about their outcome.

Jenner’s life is a metaphor for what the NYT wishes for the GOP – a once masculine, assured and patriotic hero descends into the madness of self-castration and the thrall of fickle women of dubious intelligence who themselves idolize the assured masculinity of black thugs and reprobates.

So why would it by (presumably) high testosterone older men who are more likely to decide they are transgendered? Testosterone tends to fall in men as they age. Could a dramatic drop in testosterone levels cause that?

So why would it by (presumably) high testosterone older men who are more likely to decide they are transgendered? Testosterone tends to fall in men as they age. Could a dramatic drop in testosterone levels cause that?

I thought that long term use of steroids can render a man’s own testosterone production dormant (the shrunken strawberry effect), so that after he stops dosing he may not be able to return to a baseline commensurate with the testosterone production of a healthy man of his age who did not use steroids?

It’s ironic that the same people who vociferously (and correctly) argue against climate change deniers as being unscientific, will argue vociferously (and incorrectly) that Jenner (and similar) is now female.

And, of course, if you have the temerity to point out that hormone shots and/or surgery does not change one’s gender – you are clearly some sort of horrible troglodyte.

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants. We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.

Assimilation is out-marriage. Period.

If the women aren’t competitive in the sex/marriage market outside their ethnic group, then the group will not assimilate.

Right, and this is part of the reason I am skeptical of the Somali Muslims being settled in Minnesota. That just seems like a long road to assimilation, there.

I always say that you can gauge your reaction to a particular immigrant group by whether you like their food, or their women. A lot of non-Europeans wouldn't make the list, but I think in general East Asians and Latinos do. IOW, if we get immigrants from those communities they will probably blend in successfully over a few generations. The others, I'm less optimistic.

Last night as the Oroville Dam story was breaking CNN continued to show taped programming. I checked several times over about a three hour period and each time they were still showing Anthony Bourdain food/travel shows from Italy and Argentina.

I know a high school senior who is MtF “transgendered.” The tragically hilarious part is this kid is 74″ tall and big. And the taller, more broad-shouldered, and squarer-jawed he gets, the more dresses, makeup, and scarves he puts on. All anybody from my generation can think of when they see him is Monty Python.

All medical and scientific inquiry into this condition seems to have halted. If you say you’re really female despite having an XY chromosome in every cell in your body, then that’s that. Note that this also eliminates compassion as a response to the condition, because compassion implies that the object of compassion is defective or otherwise pathological, so even feeling sorry for a transgender is crimethink. Therefore, the entire rest of the world has to play along with this absolutely un-real charade to signal our virtue.

If the women aren't competitive in the sex/marriage market outside their ethnic group, then the group will not assimilate.

Right, and this is part of the reason I am skeptical of the Somali Muslims being settled in Minnesota. That just seems like a long road to assimilation, there.

I always say that you can gauge your reaction to a particular immigrant group by whether you like their food, or their women. A lot of non-Europeans wouldn’t make the list, but I think in general East Asians and Latinos do. IOW, if we get immigrants from those communities they will probably blend in successfully over a few generations. The others, I’m less optimistic.

One thing I really, really, really like about Michelle Obama. When she went to Saudi Arabia she had nothing on her head, not even a ribbon or barette. All women officials and official's wives who have visited Saudi for decades all have worn head scarves in deference to Islam insanity that hair has something to do with sex.

I really like that. The even better thing she did was to aggressively stick out her hand to be shaken. That violates a major, major orthodox jew and muslim taboo. You see, a "woman is a pitcher of filth whose lower hole is filled with dried blood" the Talmud and Koran. So it is some kind of horrendous violation of purity and cleanliness for a man to touch a woman. You see, she might be menstruating or just about to menstruate or recently menstruated. Muslims don't have that only touch your wife 14 days of the month to avoid contamination thing, but they have the same horror of accidentally touching a possibly menstruating woman on a public bus or store or sidewalk ( unless of course they are raping her in which case there is no taboo.)

Wonderful religion no? Its a sin to sit next to a woman on a bus or allow a Dr or nurse to care for you because she might be menstruating but it is some kind of mitzvah to rape a woman if she is out in public without a male body guard. Apparently the rape is to punish the woman for being outside without the body guard. Allah's idea is that since the rape is to punish the woman it is some kind of good deed like donating to charity or saying a prayer.

"Quit letting yourself get bothered by a woman who speaks the truth all the time and you will realize she’s not abrasive."

Coulter was banished from National Review shortly after 9/11 when she said that we should invade Middle Eastern countries and convert them (presumably via force) to Christianity. Everyone thought she was crazy. Then Bush invaded two Muslim countries without converting them to Christianity - or even challenging most of the cultural mores - and we all learned what Coulter already knew. There's no fixing those places until you force them to abandon their Dark Age religion, and the modern West simply does not have the cojones to do that.

Too many conservatives apologize when viciously attacked for voicing conservative truths. Coulter's strength is that she never does.

For the most part, Muslim conquerors did not forcibly convert conquered Christians and Jews but instead they placed them under various economic and civil disabilities while being a Muslim brought benefits, so it was advantageous to convert. Hell, in America we now have people “converting” to black or female so switching religions is a piece of cake by comparison. If we still had civilizational confidence we could have done the same in the Middle East. Many people (esp. the elites) will agree that “Paris is worth a Mass” if you make it worth their while.

“But Ms Linde told the Aftonbladet newspaper that she was not willing to break Iranian law. She said that since the only other option would be to send an all-male delegation, she was required to wear a headscarf.”

Oh, the pain for a feminist ideologue, or a Swedish government figure (but I repeat myself). Sending an all male delegation!? The horror! That would undo years of rubbing the Swedish male’s collective face in his new subordinate role. But on the other hand, complying with patriarchal rules about a female dress code!? Surely almost as horrible.

(And never mind the fact that the Swedes were travelling to Iran, and old fashioned patriarchal hierarchy notions of “when in Rome”, etc. The dogmas of modern US sphere feminism are of course universal moral truths, to be imposed on foreigners by force, if necessary – entire wedding parties have been slaughtered in Afghanistan supposedly in that cause. But not on noble immigrants, obviously, that would be racist…..erm……)

I’m actually rather surprised the Swedes didn’t decline to have any trade deal at all, unless the Iranians first kowtowed properly to their cultural baggage.

Why don't they care? Poor-to-poorish white people. I lived in Oroville for 2 years. My father is buried there. Surprise, surprise -- a big meth problem, too. When I was there 25 years ago, the Mayor called Oroville the "armpit of Butte County" and recommended renaming it "Lake Oroville" to emphasize the positive attributes of the area--namely, fishing and recreation (provided by the dam).

Oroville has only two claims to fame of which I'm aware...the last wild Indjin, "Ishi", stumbled out of the woods at Oroville in 1911. In a way, the last indian to surrender to the white man (aside from Cher). My cousin, who also lived in Oroville, liked to joke that the general condition of the area might be described as "Ishi's Revenge". The second claim to fame is that Aaron Rodgers briefly attended Butte College in Oroville, though he lived in nearby Chico.

“the last wild Indjin, “Ishi”, stumbled out of the woods at Oroville in 1911.”

Right, and this is part of the reason I am skeptical of the Somali Muslims being settled in Minnesota. That just seems like a long road to assimilation, there.

I always say that you can gauge your reaction to a particular immigrant group by whether you like their food, or their women. A lot of non-Europeans wouldn't make the list, but I think in general East Asians and Latinos do. IOW, if we get immigrants from those communities they will probably blend in successfully over a few generations. The others, I'm less optimistic.

My wife's been bipolar the 26 years I've known her. She also has a great ability to retcon her memories to suit what she currently believes. I had never thought of it in the terms you stated. Mostly, it exasperated me to have to say, "No, this is what happened" and then deal with her denials: "I never / never would have / I can't believe I would have." She doesn't have to be actively manic to do this. Even when she's stable she does it a lot. It just has to be a stressful situation.

At any rate, I now have one more CBT type thing to tell myself while managing her: "Self, she's not lying, she's retconning. Don't get angry. Just explain."

Retconning isn't in the DSM-IV, but it certainly explains things she says as she's not the lying type. In fact, she's compulsively truth telling even when discrete lies would be much more advisable, which makes it all the more upsetting to have her "lying" about her past.

Interesting insight.

Retconning — a term from the comic book industry for “retroactive continuity” or rewriting a fictional universe’s past to fit what you feel like doing in the present — might be a pretty useful concept for psychologists.

People who are, for example, depressed sometimes have a hard time remembering they’ve ever been happy. In turn, that contributes to further depression.

In a slightly different variant. I knew somebody who after a certain age couldn’t remember happy memories the next day. He’d go home from a dinner party or whatever all smiles, but the next morning could only remember uncomfortable moments from the evening before.

That’s, perhaps, a little bit different from the more common retconning of past memories to fit current mood, in that it seems like it was driven by an actual defect of memory that only retained in long term memory recollections of negative emotions and forgot all memories of positive emotions. It didn’t seem to be driven as much by current mood as by an inability to retain overnight positive long term memories, leaving only negative memories the next day.

I’ve never heard of this being known to psychology. I don’t know whether it’s extremely rare or if psychologists just lack a conceptual framework that keeps them from noticing it.

Bodil is a male-to-female transsexual. I went to one of her talks. It was OK, but there was a bit too much Brony meme stuff in it. A lot of transsexuals seem to be not only be 'born in the wrong the body' but also permanently stuck in a pre-pubescent fantasy mindset. One thing I remember from her talk was when one of the audience asked a slightly difficult technical question - she seemed afraid, as if she had been attacked, and glanced anxiously at the organiser for backup. It was like watching an insecure child in a school play.

And you're right about the tranny / STEM thing. At my last job we had an American manager who was always keen to employ women in technical jobs. We found one candidate who was off-the-charts in accomplishments - various awards etc. I couldn't help notice her Adam's Apple, and when I looked into her awards they were awarded to a man who looked just like her.

Thank you for the kind words. I have my own faults so I don't judge others. Apparently, many on this blog love hating other people for holding different beliefs. Let me tell you this: Hating others will never make ourselves better and it wouldn't keep our country safe.

I live in the Northeast and I have a doctorate in anti-terrorism studies. Do I brag about it? No, I don't care about my credentials or the fact my I.Q is MENSA level and way above average. I don't need to brag about how I am better then you like the democrat Donald Trump does.

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don't let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

You guys are living back in the Bush administration, I am dealing with 5th generation warfare studies with my students. If we close our borders, how do we know who the real terrorists are?

We are a moral nation founded on rational principles. We cannot, constitutionally, ban people from certain countries. This sounds good on paper, but in practice, this is moronic. Let me explain.

If we don't take in people from these countries, how can we really know who the enemy is? We need to let them in and closely monitor them, and when they are about to strike, we step in and arrest them. That is why we have an FBI guys. To investigate and apprehend terrorists.

So maybe a few slip thru the cracks and actually commit terrorist attacks? Big deal. America has over 300 million people, we can easily deal with the loss of life.

If we don't let them in, how can we really tell who the bad guys are?

Or maybe you guys are all neocons and haven't learned the lessons of George Bush's failed policy of "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here."

I'm sorry folks, we need to let them in and separate the wheat from the chaff.

We need to fight them here, where we have law enforcement capabilities on our side.

I don't know if you have been paying attention, but the rest of the world hates America because of Trump.

Best case scenario: Courts overrule Trump's racist and draconian bans and we fight the war here on our shores.

This is the battle for freedom folks. It's gonna get messy.

Your troll started out kind of low energy but this is pure gold:

My main concern is stopping this destructive Trump policy regarding extreme vetting. This is stupid. If we don’t let in millions of refugees into our country how can we really figure out who the bad guys are?

The Monty Python boys made for more plausible women, it must be observed.

It’s just .. Nusbacher is one of the world’s greatest military history nerds. He can speak confidently and informatively on everything from Cannae and Gaugamela to Austerlitz and Iwo Jima; the British grenadiers at Blenheim or the intricacies of Bolshevik tank-motor production..

And he, a history professor at one of the world’s top war colleges; he, a man with wife and child, that he has decided to part with his manhood and put on the dress?

I’m not an American so this probably a more effective shock to me than “the breakfast of champions.”

I see the Monty Python angle in the students being punished for making jokes about the trans-prof. Like the scene in Life of Brian when the Roman troops are punished for laughing when Pontius Pilate keeps referring to his friend Bigus Dickus.

Invading the entire Middle East would have been a disaster, no matter what, even if our intentions were to convert everyone.

“Invading the entire Middle East would have been a disaster, no matter what, even if our intentions were to convert everyone.”

I agree entirely. My point was that Coulter seems to have understood, or at least had an inkling, that invasion was doomed to failure unless we changed their religion. That was a necessary, though probably not sufficient, condition for fixing the Middle East.

The NR folks who drove out Coulter but pushed for the war hadn’t a clue what they were doing.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don’t see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Yeah, what could anyone who loves his country possibly have against Soros?

I wonder if this is an Anglopherical phenomenon? I’m having trouble thinking of anything like this in the French-speaking world. I’m sure someone can correct me but I’m unable to think of anyone at all. Anglos are really weird about the gay stuff generally.

Dunno. Transgenderism is huge in Brazil.

Cagey beast may be talking about the respectability newly bestowed on transgenderism in the Anglosphere. The brazilian “travelos” have been a feature of the seedy sex underbelly in France for decades (Bois-De-Boulogne). Shemales prostitutes have been around for a very long time, but they belonged deep in the gutter.

Never made this connection before but damn, you're right Steve. A big meme in alt-right circles is fetishizing "traps" or male-to-female transsexuals. Could it have something to do with enjoying masculine mindset but still enjoying feminine beauty? You should keep digging...

I have no idea what you’re talking about, because I don’t follow the meme wars closely. But those things are usually started by internet-savvy, college-age peoples, whose minds are occupied by internet-y things. As you may have heard, pornography is big on the internet, and “traps” are a mainstay of internet porn. Either because the people consuming trap porn are actually gay, or because they like to feel ashamed of themselves, or maybe they just like feeling confused. I don’t know.

Anyway, these alt-right meme warriors may have no personal interest in trap pornography whatsoever. It’s something they’re aware of, and it’s not part of the mainstream of our culture. Normal people (or “normies,” as they call them) are still uncomfortable with the subject. So alt-righters can use them to be “transgressive.”

I wouldn’t look any further into the subject, except to say that sexual deviance gets defined down, just like other forms of deviance. The alt-right is at least rhetorically more open to deviance than other groups, if not in actual interest. So it stands to reason that they’d sprinkle in sexual fetish references amongst the gas chamber references.

It's funny that you mention this connection, as there's a semi-serious meme on the alt-right that a lot of these anonymous women on alt-right sites and social media, especially those claiming to be "tradwives" i.e. traditional wives are actually right-wing dudes with a transgender fetish and get off on pretending to be women online.

I don’t know why we have to add the Freudian twist. It’s perfectly plausible that a lot of women on the internet are actually men, because men do that sort of thing. (So do women, for that matter, though they tend to stick to certain parts of the internet; they’re not as adventurous, I find.) But why speculate on it being a “fetish?” Why say they “get off” in a sense different from how everyone else “gets off” by tricking people on the internet?

It’s a very narrow, debased way to look at things. But our culture and our internet culture especially are sex-obsessed.

The Matrix borrowed from quite a lot, including Japanese-y things like Ghost in the Shell. I don’t know much about anime, so I won’t comment on that. But I do know about Alice in Wonderland, which the movie referenced outright with a “white rabbit.”

I also noticed similarities between The Matrix and Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day, which is a dystopian novel about a world run (supposedly) by a benevolent supercomputer. It has a red pill/blue pill scene, and at one point the protagonist attacks the computer, only to discover that it had been attacked many times before and that those brave enough to try and smart enough to get there are invited to join the ruling class of programmers. Which is a lot like the second Matrix movie.

The one thing that seems to hold together the different flavours of "right wing" politics is a tolerance of inequality. But there seem to be many different reasons for that tolerance.

Social conservatives are high in the Big 5 trait conscientiousness, particularly the subtrait of orderliness. For them, hierarchy is part of natural order.

Libertarianism seems to be associated with extremely high IQ, which seems to help you realize that equality among humans is really a nonstarter. (It also probably makes you sympathetic towards sci fi intellectualizing.)

However, libertarianism also seems to be associated with Big 5 low agreeableness, which basically means you don't really care about others.*

Transsexuality is never going to fit into the social conservative version of right wing politics, with its vision of a natural order, but it seems quite compatible with the other versions of right wingery, including the selfish jerk version.

-----

*The right has more than its share of outright jerks: Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Milo. I can often appreciate what these people have to say, but it's still quite apparent that they're jerks.

Any published evidence for an association between intelligence and libertarianism?

Many of the libertarians I have known seemed more like brainwashed cultists who worship the “free market” rather than sophisticated thinkers.

My wife's been bipolar the 26 years I've known her. She also has a great ability to retcon her memories to suit what she currently believes. I had never thought of it in the terms you stated. Mostly, it exasperated me to have to say, "No, this is what happened" and then deal with her denials: "I never / never would have / I can't believe I would have." She doesn't have to be actively manic to do this. Even when she's stable she does it a lot. It just has to be a stressful situation.

At any rate, I now have one more CBT type thing to tell myself while managing her: "Self, she's not lying, she's retconning. Don't get angry. Just explain."

Retconning isn't in the DSM-IV, but it certainly explains things she says as she's not the lying type. In fact, she's compulsively truth telling even when discrete lies would be much more advisable, which makes it all the more upsetting to have her "lying" about her past.

Interesting insight.

All women do that, and most of the time it is lying. We make ourselves feel better by calling it unconscious manipulation, or whatever, but it’s lying. It’s a very womanly way to lie, and goes right along with men’s capacity for rationalization. Which might be unconscious and in some cases innocent.

However, in general I say the onus is on people to check themselves and ensure they’re not pulling stuff out of their asses to help their case. Because if you don’t check yourself regularly, you’re being negligent. Negligent “retconning” (there has to be a less internet-y term for this) or rationalization is lying, plainly and simply.

Now, if you happen to be mentally ill and can’t control yourself, that’s different. Just bear in mind, regular women do this too. All the time! It’s part of their nature.

Retconning -- a term from the comic book industry for "retroactive continuity" or rewriting a fictional universe's past to fit what you feel like doing in the present -- might be a pretty useful concept for psychologists.

People who are, for example, depressed sometimes have a hard time remembering they've ever been happy. In turn, that contributes to further depression.

In a slightly different variant. I knew somebody who after a certain age couldn't remember happy memories the next day. He'd go home from a dinner party or whatever all smiles, but the next morning could only remember uncomfortable moments from the evening before.

That's, perhaps, a little bit different from the more common retconning of past memories to fit current mood, in that it seems like it was driven by an actual defect of memory that only retained in long term memory recollections of negative emotions and forgot all memories of positive emotions. It didn't seem to be driven as much by current mood as by an inability to retain overnight positive long term memories, leaving only negative memories the next day.

I've never heard of this being known to psychology. I don't know whether it's extremely rare or if psychologists just lack a conceptual framework that keeps them from noticing it.

I’m not up on psychological jargon, but the popular term “selective memory” covers a lot of it, I think.

I’ve also heard of something called “memory bias” (there’s a recognized everything-bias, these days). There are like a million of those listed on Wikipedia, and I don’t feel like combing through them.

Come on Steve, I had the party line down pat, but this post ruins my learning curve/comprehension.

O’Brien to Winston in ’48/’84 was “How many fingers do you see?”
Obama in 2016 was “How many women do you see on the Wheaties box?”

Now you tell me ala Reich on the Berkley brownshirt beatdowns that this transgenderism is a right wing false flag. My head would explode but I’ve got one of the Womens’ March pink hats coming from Amazon.

Then again I’ve heard that wearing the p hat when you are male means you intend to join ranks with Bruce soon, so more right wing voters are on the way.
What’s not to like, Elizabeth Caitlyn Stanton?

Calling me PC for pointing out the perfectly obvious, that Ann Coulter has a very abrasive personality, may be civil by the standards of lawyerdom, but in the real world it's assholery.

Review the thread.

Coulter a jerk? Come on, the truth hurts. She was drinking the koolaid on the neocon invasion of the ME and championing Mitt Romneycare for prez in ’12 but she ‘s right on immigration and she has learned you never apologize to the libprog media jackals.

She was drinking the koolaid on the neocon invasion of the ME and championing Mitt Romneycare for prez in ’12 but she ‘s right on immigration and she has learned you never apologize to the libprog media jackals.

Yeah, it's almost like her conservatism isn't super-principled or thought through, just a side effect of her general jerkiness.

I have a certain amount of respect for the likes of her and Milo, but there are also a lot of red flags there.

To understand homosexuality in the British Empire and their colonies, one must understand the British upper-class "public" school system that isolated the sexes from age 7 through their university years. It probably didn't help that upper-class British boys also wore dresses when toddlers.

In the 19th and early 20th Centuries, homosexuality was often called the "English disease". In spite of recurrent sex scandals involving pedophilia that continue to be shoved under the rug, nothing seems to have changed except that graduates of the British upper-class "public" school system can now cavort in public?

(Originally published in England under the title “The Public School Phenomenon, 597-1977.”)

Brief excerpt from page 45:

Certainly some of the phraseology is rather suggestive: “tart” for favourite at 17th-century Winchester, for example; and at many schools boys shared beds until quite old. Eton founding statutes stopped this at fourteen; but Westminster in 1560 stated that they must sleep two to a bed, and at Harrow the scholars slept together in beds till 1805. We have seen Udall move straight from prison for buggery to a headmastership. To a considerable degree, however, the boys gained their experience in the rumbustious, immoral, whore-ridden world of the towns the schools were set in.

This is the book referenced at the end of the following quote, which is from an excellent John Derbyshire piece from 2001:

Christopher Hitchens in the New York Review of Books (9/21/00), writing about English boys’-boarding-school homosexuality: “Mutual and manual gratification is the rule. The employment of orifices risks the imputation of unmanliness.” (Though nobody should venture into this particular neck of the woods without packing Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy’s definitive book The Public School Phenomenon, which has much, much more to say on the topic.)

Derbyshire goes on to cite other examples of (active) male homosexuality that did/do not, typically at least, involve buggery (i.e., anal penetration). All of these, including the quote above, follow the quote below which itself seems rather apropos, even if only tangentially, to the original topic of this iSteve thread:

More to the point than any of these, however, is a widespread revulsion, found in both genders, all times and all places and cultures, towards the man who plays the part of a woman. There is a fundamental human contempt towards a man who permits himself to be penetrated — [...]

In this vein, a web site that I am keen to cite (with the disclaimer that doing so should not be construed as endorsement on my part and the caveat that it contains highly graphic content), because it represents a point-of-view so rarely heard and so vehemently and even viciously opposed by the Buggery Lobby is that of Bill Weintraub’s Man2Man Alliance. As emphatically anti-buggery as he is pro-homoerotic, Weintraub coined the term “Frot” for the non-penetrative, phallus-on-phallus act that he promotes not only as a far safer alternative to buggery but as what he argues is the true, natural, egalitarian and dignified form of male homosexual intercourse.

To be fair my college educated, German Americsn husband thought that was still the national anthem of Germany.

It is still the national anthem of Germany. You just aren't supposed to sing the first two verses in public. The first verse is not really as "chauvinistic/nationalistic" as people like to claim, (it was really a 19th century call to unity) but it does claim a lot of land for Germany that now lies in Poland/Russia/Lithuania.

Here's another transgender example that fits into the pattern that Steve has written about.

Jennell Jaquays (born 1956) was originally Paul Jaquays, and as a young man, he had some prominence writing Dungeons & Dragons adventure modules and game materials for Judges Guild (one of many companies at that time which sprang up in the wake of TSR's success with D&D, around the late 1970s to early 1980s). Paul/Jennell continued working in the gaming industry, including table-top games, video game designs, and fantasy art illustrations. He/she got married and sired two children; after his reassignment, she is now a lesbian and is now in a relationship with a different woman.

Of course, as a fantasy role-playing game, you can create whatever race and gender you want for your player character (PC). In practice, this can lead to some awkwardness at the gaming table, if you're a male player with a female PC, and you get too carried away with the role-playing. At any rate, D&D has something like an 80/20 split between male and female players.

And as a fantasy game where magic exists, anything can happen to your character. You could get polymorphed by an evil wizard (and not just turned into a frog), or cursed by an evil high priest. If you turn to p. 145 of your 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide, there is such a thing as the Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity, a cursed magic item which will change the character's gender to the opposite one. On the other hand, as an elven or human maid of pure heart and good alignment, you can also get a unicorn as a mount (see p. 98 of the 1st edition Monster Manual).

Didn’t s/he get married to Rebecca Heineman, formerly ‘Burger’ Bill Heineman, who helped write a lot of 80s computer RPGs and one of the very few mtfs to regret their surgical transition publicly?

As a promising member of the dance troupe, [Jin Xing] studied Russian ballet, Chinese opera, dancing and acrobatics; as a soldier, she became proficient with machine guns and learned how to place bombs delicately under bridges.

Let Thursday alone. He remarked once that he finds Coulter abrasive, but everyone is reacting as if he made post after post insisting upon it and refuting anyone who disagrees. Don't treat him like he's some kind of argumentative asshole; he hates that sort of person.

He won’t quit. I told him that I don’t find her to be a jerk at all. That’s my opinion, and therefore, it’s right (to me). The guy’s gotta go on and on about it and call me idiot for saying she’s not a jerk. There’s no hard definition. I figured Thursday was a left-winger, as that’s the type that would find truth-telling and standing up for oneself as a conservative “abrasive”. However, he sounds libertarian now, which is all cool with me.

Oh, I looked above and maybe he didn’t get my Jerk-Store joke. Well, “Jerk Store is the line, and I’m stickin’ with it!” It’s from Seinfeld, and if you don’t get it, Thursday, I apologize for that. Your insults make no sense at all to me either.

Let Thursday alone. He remarked once that he finds Coulter abrasive, but everyone is reacting as if he made post after post insisting upon it and refuting anyone who disagrees. Don't treat him like he's some kind of argumentative asshole; he hates that sort of person.

It’s like 15 minutes later and I finally got your humo(ur), Autochthon. Very funny sarcasm too!

I recommend Mr. Unz' handy "Ignore Commenter" feature. I've used it for Thursday and Corvinus, too. (You'll note Mr. Unz has the phrase "Boring Windbag" in the field; I'm not sure if that's actually in the code or not, but it looks like it may be; it's very much in keepingwith the kind of wry commands the software engineers I work with would use to thus define a class....)

I don't mind offensive or wrong-headed stuff; in fact to discourage it would itself be wrongheaded by stifling debate and so on; but once I'm convinced a commenter is firmly in the realm of "Neener-neener boo-boo!" or otherwise completely a waste of my time, that "Ignore Commenter" feature is the way to go. I expect many others have applied it to me, and I don't at all blame them!

I've noticed that as men age they lose their hair, but not just head hair. They lose it from their legs and chests too. I just assumed that was an age thing, but is it because of less T?

My hubbie is far less hairy than when we married 20 years ago, but no other measure of T has decreased that I can see.

Does he take finasteride? I’ve noticed that since taking it, both my head hair is thicker and has gained back some ground that had receded, but also that my body hair seems less developed in places like back, shoulders, arms, stomach, etc. I had hoped for this latter effect, so I am not sure whether it is placebo or not. I have heard of others having this happen (and it probably should, since it is DHT that is causing it to advance in the first place). Re: the head hair, definitely not placebo.

As you get older, especially into your 60s, you produce less T so naturally less DHT. If what is happening with the finasteride is true (less DHT means less body hair), then one would expect that to happen with a decrease in DHT through less T.

As one who has encountered, first hand, much “transgenderism” in academic and “social justice” environments, I have come to believe that for some, perhaps even many, there really is serious emotional and mental disturbance. Here is the adult mother of a 14 year old "boy to girl transgender" (who has been highly sexualized, as the photographs will show) who now reveals that she too (the adult married female biological mother of 6 children) is a transgender "man" and, with testosterone and surgery, is transitioning from "woman to man.”

Mother of transgender girl reveals she is now also transitioning into a MAN

Erica House, a mother-of-six from Detroit Michigan, proudly supported her daughter Corey after she revealed she was a transgender girl .
A year after she surprised Corey with her first estrogen prescription, Erica is living as a man named Eric.
Eric said his husband Les and their children have been completely supportive of him and his transition.
Eric has been taking testosterone since February, and he hopes to have tops surgery to remove his breasts next month.

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender "support group" that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one's biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a "you are transgender" and here is how you can be even "more" transgender, get hormones, get surgery. Transgenderism has become somewhat of a secular “religion” and while many religions do no harm, others become dangerous and some even become a cult. I recognize the trajectory of “transgenderism.”

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

Let’s see, Soros was a committed anti-communist, so that must make him a fascist or a Nazi (as anyone to the right of communism is so designated)–so he’s really a right-winger, on “our side.”

Though, kudos for catching the guilt by association with the KGB. I cashed my check today…

I am not a fan of Soros, but I also don't consider him Public Enemy number one, and his importance in the global sphere of things seems to me vastly overrated. He is to the right what the Koch brothers are to the left.

The idea that there is distinct ‘gay’ness or even ‘sexuality’ is a 20th century one, a product of luxury really. Note how women in poor societies are restricted from most men without money. You took/take your pleasures where you could. Then you might get a taste for what you can afford. ‘Homosexuals’ as we now understand them were not the whole story nor were they ‘illegal’, because no such concept existed in law. Only homosexual acts were banned, a very different concept.

Then yes, isolation of boys in boarding schools, in my day 50 years I heard it was common to ask another boy to ‘put out his legs’ for you to copulate against, as a favour, cross his legs and you pretend it’s a girl’s vagina.

But Gandhi has written some very passionate homo-erotic letters to friends of his younger days. Whether it was fantasy, poetic license it does seem that he was at least what we now call ‘bi’ but in his culture that may have been more common than we might expect: I’ve studied Indian culture for 40 years and even been exposed to village boys having sex, who probably were not ‘gay’. It’s a shame all this can not be studied because of the fanatics of ‘equality’. It’s far more complex than anyone seems to realise.

Also, as an Aspergers myself, I believe most ‘gays’ are on the Autism Spectrum, so there’s that!

Regarding homosexual behavior among adolescent boys:
At least some form of this would appear fairly common across cultures. I think it is fairly obvious that such behavior, more often than not, is motivated by one or more of the following: curiosity; excitement at newly discovered/explored feelings; lack of a female outlet for such feelings. Clearly, of the total number of boys who engage-in such behavior as adolescents, most (and likely an overwhelming majority) grow-up to be fully heterosexual men.

(I am unable to provide citations but expect that I could come-up with some, were I to invest sufficient time and effort into doing so.)

In the past at least, most such behavior amongst boys was probably relatively harmless.

The majority of it may very well have not gone beyond indulgence in mere self-gratifying activities in the presence of but without any physical contact between, one another. References, at least in folklore, to a group of boys gathering at a special or "secret" meeting place (such as a tree house) or at boarding school and pleasuring themselves in each others' presence (often while sharing one or more prized copies of an expectedly taboo magazine*) would seem almost proverbial. Such scenes no doubt are included in the fond memories that (even) many a heterosexual man has from his youth.

(*And even those magazines themselves, when compared to the sheer depravity that nearly every child today by the age of 12 or so has seen on the Internet, seem almost wholesome.)

Certainly, when actual sexual contact did occur between adolescent boys, it was extremely rare for it to include such an unnatural, dangerous, brutal and gruesome act as buggery (anal penetration). Fellatio was perhaps less rare but still unlikely to have been the norm.

Today, however, thanks to the combined influences of the Internet and the "LGBTQ" Revolution, there can be no doubt that the situation has changed for the worse. Although instances of the more innocuous behaviors likely still make-up the majority of erotic encounters between boys, there can be little doubt that this is considerably less so now.

With the hopes that my words will not be misconstrued, I will conclude by applying the old meme This is why we can't have nice things here. (Yes, I'm saying that, at least from a secular perspective, there was a certain innocence and benign and, in some respects at least, even somewhat wholesome aspect to at least much of the erotic exploration that often occurred between adolescent boys. And that this is yet another thing that the "LGBTQ" mafia has sullied, desecrated and defiled and thereby robbed us of. I realize this may sound completely paradoxical and illogical and no doubt, it will be beyond the grasp of many but I trust that there will be at least some readers who will understand and even appreciate my point. Note that my first point may not be all that different from one that C.S. Lewis, to the shock of many, made in at least one of his books.)

For every Coulter there is a Rosie and every Ben or Milo there is a Reich or a Soros.

What is the right wing obsession with Soros? I remember the guy as a committed anti-Communist. Certainly a lot of Russian money has been spent to besmirch his image over the last 20 years, but I don't see why the right wants to line up with the KGB on this issue (although the alt Right seems increasingly to just be a Russian funded political movement).

I had thought of replying to you in detail, and as others have said, you are not a troll account. But then I thought that you have given such an easy layup to loads of people on here re: Soros that they would not be able to resist taking the bait. Good work guys. There’s an hour of my life I never had to give up.

Invading the entire Middle East would have been a disaster, no matter what, even if our intentions were to convert everyone.

Invading the entire ME was out of the question–as converting the entire Muslim ME to Christianity was out if the question. It’s amazing that supposedly intelligent people cannot understand Coulter’s point, i.e. you’re NOT going to win (the war, hearts and minds, whatever) unless you convert them, and since you’re NOT going to convert them, don’t even try–don’t invade, don’t start a war.

Overthrowing the Sunni Muslim minority Saddam Hussein, to be replaced by someone from the Shia Muslim majority would accomplish what exactly? To be an American puppet?

The Monty Python boys made for more plausible women, it must be observed.

It's just .. Nusbacher is one of the world's greatest military history nerds. He can speak confidently and informatively on everything from Cannae and Gaugamela to Austerlitz and Iwo Jima; the British grenadiers at Blenheim or the intricacies of Bolshevik tank-motor production..

And he, a history professor at one of the world's top war colleges; he, a man with wife and child, that he has decided to part with his manhood and put on the dress?

I'm not an American so this probably a more effective shock to me than "the breakfast of champions."

What the hell is going on?

I see the Monty Python angle in the students being punished for making jokes about the trans-prof. Like the scene in Life of Brian when the Roman troops are punished for laughing when Pontius Pilate keeps referring to his friend Bigus Dickus.

It's like 15 minutes later and I finally got your humo(ur), Autochthon. Very funny sarcasm too!

I don't know how to figuratively LOL, but I literally LOLed.

Thank you.

I recommend Mr. Unz’ handy “Ignore Commenter” feature. I’ve used it for Thursday and Corvinus, too. (You’ll note Mr. Unz has the phrase “Boring Windbag” in the field; I’m not sure if that’s actually in the code or not, but it looks like it may be; it’s very much in keepingwith the kind of wry commands the software engineers I work with would use to thus define a class….)

I don’t mind offensive or wrong-headed stuff; in fact to discourage it would itself be wrongheaded by stifling debate and so on; but once I’m convinced a commenter is firmly in the realm of “Neener-neener boo-boo!” or otherwise completely a waste of my time, that “Ignore Commenter” feature is the way to go. I expect many others have applied it to me, and I don’t at all blame them!

“Transgenderism” and especially transgender advocacy is rampant and graphically displayed on tumblr, instagram, twitter, facebook, etc. And schools, churches, and psychologists operate “support groups” for all age groups. I have never seen or heard of any transgender “support group” that’s encourages thoughtful understanding of one’s biological-gender self, but rather these groups actively promote a “you are transgender” and here is how you can be even “more” transgender, get hormones, get surgery.

4thWaveNow, a site that bills itself as, "A community of parents & friends skeptical of the "transgender child/teen" trend", contains much documentation and discussion of exactly what you have described. I discovered the site thanks to an iSteve commenter posting it here back in May. Particularly remarkable about the 4thWaveNow site is that it was created by "a left-leaning parent". And, from the admittedly limited perusing I have done of the site, it would appear that at least most of those who post there are "respectables" who, at least for the most part, have bought into the rest of the "LGB" Doctrine and agenda.

I must say that perhaps the single greatest misgiving I have had about now-President Trump since the campaign and continue to have is his atrocious record in this entire area of "'LGBTQ' issues". And now comes this:

(I must point-out that the way Ivanka is dressed in the photo itself contradicts her purported embrace of Orthodox Judaism. The "rabbis" who performed her "conversion" are known, at the very least, for being at the left-most fringes of what can even be called "Orthodox". How naive does one have to be not to see that this was a "conversion" of convenience, for the obvious purpose of being able to claim that the marriage was kosher.)

Is no one else concerned over President Trump’s continued pandering to the “LGBTQ” mafia? (See links in previous post of mine that this is in reply-to)

Throughout the campaign and up until the present, I have witnessed a disturbing silence on this matter– even from unapologetic traditionalists who, in the past, have been exceptional for speaking-out against said lobby and its pernicious agenda.

Even the grotesque spectacle, during this past summer’s Republican Convention, of Peter Thiel championing the “LGBTQ” cause while blaming social conservatives for starting the Culture Wars* (to great applause, no less) seems to have generated little of the reaction I would have expected.

(*As at least some here know, he had it backwards; It was Thiel’s fellow Sodomites and the Cultural Marxists who attacked and began raping what has been the very foundation of society for the entire history of humanity. It was they who, at least figuratively, started raping our children by targeting them, en masse, for indoctrination and conditioning. We (to the extent we have) were defending against this assault. And, alas, our defense has been nowhere near as powerful, devoted or effective as their continued, relentless onslaught.)

As I have seen mentioned in at least several comments in this thread, President Trump is accused of being too cozy with Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Whether or not such charges have any validity or merit, I do not know. (And, in the overall scheme of things, can’t say I really care that much either.) I do know, however, that one area that I only wish our President would follow Putin’s lead in is in outlawing all “LGBTQ” indoctrination of children and adolescents. If you really insist, let consenting adults bugger each other behind closed doors (though there is a strong public health argument for not allowing even that much) but don’t anyone dare tell innocent, impressionable youth the dangerous, manifest falsehood that such degenerate behavior is at all equivalent to normative heterosexuality in any form, let alone sacred matrimony. (And if you’re going to present graphic information about homosexual acts at all, to anyone, then daggonnit!, you’d better be sure to include alternatives such as Frot (GRAPHIC CONTENT) and intercrural that, if nothing else, are, on numerous counts, at least considerably lesser evils– far less likely to do lasting or irreparable harm– than the buggery that the “Gay” Mafia persistently promotes and encourages.)

Come on. Trump is from New York City, and spent years working as a TV celebrity. And his mentor was homosexual lawyer Roy Cohn. Trump has absolutely no issue with LGBTQ morality and won't even pretend he does. This is why I laugh whenever the left tries to use LGBTQ rights as an issue against Trump. Trump has switched positions on abortion to placate the right, but on sexual morality he does not appear sympathetic to Evangelicals.

Trump was not with us on this, ever. When the GOP went after him for not being a "true conservative," they were right on the cultural front, at least. Trump is in fact a normal, non-SJW liberal on most issues. How could he not be? Look where he came from. They would've drummed him out of Society long before had he been anything else; they only got around to doing so retroactively.

On three issues--immigration, trade, and foreign policy--he's heretical. (On other issues--tax cuts, abortion, etc.--I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don't hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what's important to them.) For those, and because mainstream liberalism isn't "normal" anymore, it's SJW-crazed, he's Literally Hitler. Which is good for us, because he hits the left where it hurts. But it doesn't mean we should expect him to be conservative on issues outside the Big Three.

I'm prioritizing. The judiciary omnipotent has already ruled on homomania, though clean-up operations remain (and black market cake decorators wait in the wings). World War T rages on, and will probably win, too. In the meantime, the very fate of the nation may be at stake. I'm much more concerned with where Trump stands on immigration, the economy, and war. Everything else is a luxury.

Besides, I can't match the SJW maniacs issue for issue. I'm not a zealot. I think it's better to let them go crazy, then take over the cultural high ground by force. And I mean it. We will have to storm the citadel, just like they did in the 60s and 70s.

Particular politicians, including the president, don't matter much in the Culture War, which is a multi-generational struggle. It is a political struggle, but a longterm one. We'll need the cops and judges on our side eventually, when we're fighting in the streets, but Trump can't do much about that. He wouldn't even go Jackson if SCOTUS knocked down his entire immigration policy, I presume, let alone upend the judicial oligarchy and law enforcement in general so that we can Berkeley the left instead of the other way around.

I'd like to see him go after the Cathedral, but I don't expect much. Good enough if he swings the pendulum back in the other direction. In the meantime, he fights against the New World Order in the Big Three, and maybe we have a nation whose culture we can eventually save.

Let's see, Soros was a committed anti-communist, so that must make him a fascist or a Nazi (as anyone to the right of communism is so designated)--so he's really a right-winger, on "our side."

Though, kudos for catching the guilt by association with the KGB. I cashed my check today...

so he’s really a right-winger, on “our side.”

Did you ever consider that there are more than two sides?

I am not a fan of Soros, but I also don’t consider him Public Enemy number one, and his importance in the global sphere of things seems to me vastly overrated. He is to the right what the Koch brothers are to the left.

Is no one else concerned over President Trump's continued pandering to the "LGBTQ" mafia? (See links in previous post of mine that this is in reply-to)

Throughout the campaign and up until the present, I have witnessed a disturbing silence on this matter-- even from unapologetic traditionalists who, in the past, have been exceptional for speaking-out against said lobby and its pernicious agenda.

Even the grotesque spectacle, during this past summer's Republican Convention, of Peter Thiel championing the "LGBTQ" cause while blaming social conservatives for starting the Culture Wars* (to great applause, no less) seems to have generated little of the reaction I would have expected.

(*As at least some here know, he had it backwards; It was Thiel's fellow Sodomites and the Cultural Marxists who attacked and began raping what has been the very foundation of society for the entire history of humanity. It was they who, at least figuratively, started raping our children by targeting them, en masse, for indoctrination and conditioning. We (to the extent we have) were defending against this assault. And, alas, our defense has been nowhere near as powerful, devoted or effective as their continued, relentless onslaught.)

As I have seen mentioned in at least several comments in this thread, President Trump is accused of being too cozy with Russia's Vladimir Putin. Whether or not such charges have any validity or merit, I do not know. (And, in the overall scheme of things, can't say I really care that much either.) I do know, however, that one area that I only wish our President would follow Putin's lead in is in outlawing all "LGBTQ" indoctrination of children and adolescents. If you really insist, let consenting adults bugger each other behind closed doors (though there is a strong public health argument for not allowing even that much) but don't anyone dare tell innocent, impressionable youth the dangerous, manifest falsehood that such degenerate behavior is at all equivalent to normative heterosexuality in any form, let alone sacred matrimony. (And if you're going to present graphic information about homosexual acts at all, to anyone, then daggonnit!, you'd better be sure to include alternatives such as Frot (GRAPHIC CONTENT) and intercrural that, if nothing else, are, on numerous counts, at least considerably lesser evils-- far less likely to do lasting or irreparable harm-- than the buggery that the "Gay" Mafia persistently promotes and encourages.)

Come on. Trump is from New York City, and spent years working as a TV celebrity. And his mentor was homosexual lawyer Roy Cohn. Trump has absolutely no issue with LGBTQ morality and won’t even pretend he does. This is why I laugh whenever the left tries to use LGBTQ rights as an issue against Trump. Trump has switched positions on abortion to placate the right, but on sexual morality he does not appear sympathetic to Evangelicals.

The idea that there is distinct 'gay'ness or even 'sexuality' is a 20th century one, a product of luxury really. Note how women in poor societies are restricted from most men without money. You took/take your pleasures where you could. Then you might get a taste for what you can afford. 'Homosexuals' as we now understand them were not the whole story nor were they 'illegal', because no such concept existed in law. Only homosexual acts were banned, a very different concept.

Then yes, isolation of boys in boarding schools, in my day 50 years I heard it was common to ask another boy to 'put out his legs' for you to copulate against, as a favour, cross his legs and you pretend it's a girl's vagina.

But Gandhi has written some very passionate homo-erotic letters to friends of his younger days. Whether it was fantasy, poetic license it does seem that he was at least what we now call 'bi' but in his culture that may have been more common than we might expect: I've studied Indian culture for 40 years and even been exposed to village boys having sex, who probably were not 'gay'. It's a shame all this can not be studied because of the fanatics of 'equality'. It's far more complex than anyone seems to realise.

Also, as an Aspergers myself, I believe most 'gays' are on the Autism Spectrum, so there's that!

Regarding homosexual behavior among adolescent boys:
At least some form of this would appear fairly common across cultures. I think it is fairly obvious that such behavior, more often than not, is motivated by one or more of the following: curiosity; excitement at newly discovered/explored feelings; lack of a female outlet for such feelings. Clearly, of the total number of boys who engage-in such behavior as adolescents, most (and likely an overwhelming majority) grow-up to be fully heterosexual men.

(I am unable to provide citations but expect that I could come-up with some, were I to invest sufficient time and effort into doing so.)

In the past at least, most such behavior amongst boys was probably relatively harmless.

The majority of it may very well have not gone beyond indulgence in mere self-gratifying activities in the presence of but without any physical contact between, one another. References, at least in folklore, to a group of boys gathering at a special or “secret” meeting place (such as a tree house) or at boarding school and pleasuring themselves in each others’ presence (often while sharing one or more prized copies of an expectedly taboo magazine*) would seem almost proverbial. Such scenes no doubt are included in the fond memories that (even) many a heterosexual man has from his youth.

(*And even those magazines themselves, when compared to the sheer depravity that nearly every child today by the age of 12 or so has seen on the Internet, seem almost wholesome.)

Certainly, when actual sexual contact did occur between adolescent boys, it was extremely rare for it to include such an unnatural, dangerous, brutal and gruesome act as buggery (anal penetration). Fellatio was perhaps less rare but still unlikely to have been the norm.

Today, however, thanks to the combined influences of the Internet and the “LGBTQ” Revolution, there can be no doubt that the situation has changed for the worse. Although instances of the more innocuous behaviors likely still make-up the majority of erotic encounters between boys, there can be little doubt that this is considerably less so now.

With the hopes that my words will not be misconstrued, I will conclude by applying the old meme This is why we can’t have nice things here. (Yes, I’m saying that, at least from a secular perspective, there was a certain innocence and benign and, in some respects at least, even somewhat wholesome aspect to at least much of the erotic exploration that often occurred between adolescent boys. And that this is yet another thing that the “LGBTQ” mafia has sullied, desecrated and defiled and thereby robbed us of. I realize this may sound completely paradoxical and illogical and no doubt, it will be beyond the grasp of many but I trust that there will be at least some readers who will understand and even appreciate my point. Note that my first point may not be all that different from one that C.S. Lewis, to the shock of many, made in at least one of his books.)

Is no one else concerned over President Trump's continued pandering to the "LGBTQ" mafia? (See links in previous post of mine that this is in reply-to)

Throughout the campaign and up until the present, I have witnessed a disturbing silence on this matter-- even from unapologetic traditionalists who, in the past, have been exceptional for speaking-out against said lobby and its pernicious agenda.

Even the grotesque spectacle, during this past summer's Republican Convention, of Peter Thiel championing the "LGBTQ" cause while blaming social conservatives for starting the Culture Wars* (to great applause, no less) seems to have generated little of the reaction I would have expected.

(*As at least some here know, he had it backwards; It was Thiel's fellow Sodomites and the Cultural Marxists who attacked and began raping what has been the very foundation of society for the entire history of humanity. It was they who, at least figuratively, started raping our children by targeting them, en masse, for indoctrination and conditioning. We (to the extent we have) were defending against this assault. And, alas, our defense has been nowhere near as powerful, devoted or effective as their continued, relentless onslaught.)

As I have seen mentioned in at least several comments in this thread, President Trump is accused of being too cozy with Russia's Vladimir Putin. Whether or not such charges have any validity or merit, I do not know. (And, in the overall scheme of things, can't say I really care that much either.) I do know, however, that one area that I only wish our President would follow Putin's lead in is in outlawing all "LGBTQ" indoctrination of children and adolescents. If you really insist, let consenting adults bugger each other behind closed doors (though there is a strong public health argument for not allowing even that much) but don't anyone dare tell innocent, impressionable youth the dangerous, manifest falsehood that such degenerate behavior is at all equivalent to normative heterosexuality in any form, let alone sacred matrimony. (And if you're going to present graphic information about homosexual acts at all, to anyone, then daggonnit!, you'd better be sure to include alternatives such as Frot (GRAPHIC CONTENT) and intercrural that, if nothing else, are, on numerous counts, at least considerably lesser evils-- far less likely to do lasting or irreparable harm-- than the buggery that the "Gay" Mafia persistently promotes and encourages.)

Trump was not with us on this, ever. When the GOP went after him for not being a “true conservative,” they were right on the cultural front, at least. Trump is in fact a normal, non-SJW liberal on most issues. How could he not be? Look where he came from. They would’ve drummed him out of Society long before had he been anything else; they only got around to doing so retroactively.

On three issues–immigration, trade, and foreign policy–he’s heretical. (On other issues–tax cuts, abortion, etc.–I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don’t hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what’s important to them.) For those, and because mainstream liberalism isn’t “normal” anymore, it’s SJW-crazed, he’s Literally Hitler. Which is good for us, because he hits the left where it hurts. But it doesn’t mean we should expect him to be conservative on issues outside the Big Three.

I’m prioritizing. The judiciary omnipotent has already ruled on homomania, though clean-up operations remain (and black market cake decorators wait in the wings). World War T rages on, and will probably win, too. In the meantime, the very fate of the nation may be at stake. I’m much more concerned with where Trump stands on immigration, the economy, and war. Everything else is a luxury.

Besides, I can’t match the SJW maniacs issue for issue. I’m not a zealot. I think it’s better to let them go crazy, then take over the cultural high ground by force. And I mean it. We will have to storm the citadel, just like they did in the 60s and 70s.

Particular politicians, including the president, don’t matter much in the Culture War, which is a multi-generational struggle. It is a political struggle, but a longterm one. We’ll need the cops and judges on our side eventually, when we’re fighting in the streets, but Trump can’t do much about that. He wouldn’t even go Jackson if SCOTUS knocked down his entire immigration policy, I presume, let alone upend the judicial oligarchy and law enforcement in general so that we can Berkeley the left instead of the other way around.

I’d like to see him go after the Cathedral, but I don’t expect much. Good enough if he swings the pendulum back in the other direction. In the meantime, he fights against the New World Order in the Big Three, and maybe we have a nation whose culture we can eventually save.

On other issues–tax cuts, abortion, etc.–I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don’t hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what’s important to them.

Oh, the left hassles Trump plenty on abortion. Wait until the Gorsuch hearings start. I have never really understood why abortion is such a visceral issue to the left (or the right for that matter) - most of the women who march for legalized abortion are wealthy enough to have access to safe abortions even if the US did make a sudden about face back to 1970. And honestly, I don't see the US doing much to restrict abortions under any regime. That ship sailed. But really, for a significant percentage of hard-core Democrats access to legal abortion is probably the number one issue.

There is quite a bit I could say in response to what you have written and given the opportunity, I suspect that this is a conversation we could continue for some time. For now, let me just reiterate a certain point that I have argued previously.

I believe that if nothing else then at least on transmania-- at least when it comes to drastic, irreversible alteration of innocent, confused children and adolescents-- there is still a solid, if not overwhelming majority of Americans who remain sane. Based on that, I would think that taking some step(s) to rein-in such extreme excesses of the "LGBTQ" Revolution could be a winning move for President Trump politically.

Trump was not with us on this, ever. When the GOP went after him for not being a "true conservative," they were right on the cultural front, at least. Trump is in fact a normal, non-SJW liberal on most issues. How could he not be? Look where he came from. They would've drummed him out of Society long before had he been anything else; they only got around to doing so retroactively.

On three issues--immigration, trade, and foreign policy--he's heretical. (On other issues--tax cuts, abortion, etc.--I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don't hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what's important to them.) For those, and because mainstream liberalism isn't "normal" anymore, it's SJW-crazed, he's Literally Hitler. Which is good for us, because he hits the left where it hurts. But it doesn't mean we should expect him to be conservative on issues outside the Big Three.

I'm prioritizing. The judiciary omnipotent has already ruled on homomania, though clean-up operations remain (and black market cake decorators wait in the wings). World War T rages on, and will probably win, too. In the meantime, the very fate of the nation may be at stake. I'm much more concerned with where Trump stands on immigration, the economy, and war. Everything else is a luxury.

Besides, I can't match the SJW maniacs issue for issue. I'm not a zealot. I think it's better to let them go crazy, then take over the cultural high ground by force. And I mean it. We will have to storm the citadel, just like they did in the 60s and 70s.

Particular politicians, including the president, don't matter much in the Culture War, which is a multi-generational struggle. It is a political struggle, but a longterm one. We'll need the cops and judges on our side eventually, when we're fighting in the streets, but Trump can't do much about that. He wouldn't even go Jackson if SCOTUS knocked down his entire immigration policy, I presume, let alone upend the judicial oligarchy and law enforcement in general so that we can Berkeley the left instead of the other way around.

I'd like to see him go after the Cathedral, but I don't expect much. Good enough if he swings the pendulum back in the other direction. In the meantime, he fights against the New World Order in the Big Three, and maybe we have a nation whose culture we can eventually save.

On other issues–tax cuts, abortion, etc.–I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don’t hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what’s important to them.

Oh, the left hassles Trump plenty on abortion. Wait until the Gorsuch hearings start. I have never really understood why abortion is such a visceral issue to the left (or the right for that matter) – most of the women who march for legalized abortion are wealthy enough to have access to safe abortions even if the US did make a sudden about face back to 1970. And honestly, I don’t see the US doing much to restrict abortions under any regime. That ship sailed. But really, for a significant percentage of hard-core Democrats access to legal abortion is probably the number one issue.

But really, for a significant percentage of hard-core Democrats access to legal abortion is probably the number one issue.

To be sure. Nonetheless, there would appear to be at least somewhat more tolerance on the left for individuals who merely oppose abortion than there is for individuals who oppose "LGBTQ" doctrine and agenda. Democrats or people who identify as liberal or leftist who oppose the latter ("LGBTQ") are even more difficult to find than those of the same political identity who oppose abortion.

I personally do not consider neocons like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and others to be real conservatives. Real conservatives have always been for keeping us safe and a melting pot. The neocons like Ron and Pat are trying to dismantle our conservative legacy.

Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our settlements, and by herding together establish their languages and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our language or customs, any more than they can acquire our complexion?

—Ben Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751

The policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, and laws: in a word, soon become one people.

—George Washington, letter to John Adams, November 15, 1794

Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.

—Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Flower, 1817

The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants. We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.

“The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants.”

Indeed, because the Founding Fathers had elitist notions regarding “inbreeding”–the English marry the English, the Germans marry the Germans, etc. That idea went by the wayside as third and fourth generation Americans began to marry outside of their ethnic groups for reasons other than ethnicity–shared religious values, combining economic resources.

“We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation.”

According to nativists there were “troublesome ethnicities”. The Poles, Italians, and Greeks, for example, would beg to differ. Besides, I thought white Europeans were desirable compared to other groups of people entering our shores. What gives?

Whether or not any of the past attitudes and policies that you cite were justified would not change the manifest reality today of continued mass immigration from the third-world into the countries of the West. That reality is that the effects of such immigration are, on balance, overwhelmingly detrimental and dangerous for us. (And also, by depriving the third-world countries of so many of of their most intelligent, capable and talented citizens, detrimental to them as well.) To continue on our present path would be suicidal.

Just on the matter of "refugees" alone, I have to wonder whether you are familiar with any of the facts reported at a site such as Refugee Resettlement Watch.

What, after all, is wrong with nativism? Why is this a pejorative — even on the political left, never mind from the pen of a self-described conservative. For a government to favor its own people over foreigners: There's something wrong with that? What? What, exactly? Because it's "hateful"? What nonsense! I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don't hate your kids, so long as they don't come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them.

Anyone knows if Bodil Stokke is a tranny ? Looks like one.
It's a well known (don't know if for the right reasons) functional programmer and it's been trying to get Linus kicked out of Linux.

When I was still using dating sites I eventually had to avoid any "girls" who stated that they liked physics, hardcore programming, etc. Too many trannies.

Bodil is a male-to-female transsexual. I went to one of her talks. It was OK, but there was a bit too much Brony meme stuff in it. A lot of transsexuals seem to be not only be ‘born in the wrong the body’ but also permanently stuck in a pre-pubescent fantasy mindset. One thing I remember from her talk was when one of the audience asked a slightly difficult technical question – she seemed afraid, as if she had been attacked, and glanced anxiously at the organiser for backup. It was like watching an insecure child in a school play.

And you’re right about the tranny / STEM thing. At my last job we had an American manager who was always keen to employ women in technical jobs. We found one candidate who was off-the-charts in accomplishments – various awards etc. I couldn’t help notice her Adam’s Apple, and when I looked into her awards they were awarded to a man who looked just like her.

The danger in all of this is that the SJWs, by precasting scripted rationalizations for girls, women, and minorities of both sexes regarding life and sexuality, are retarding their ability to grow up and deal with reality.

Right, and this is part of the reason I am skeptical of the Somali Muslims being settled in Minnesota. That just seems like a long road to assimilation, there.

I always say that you can gauge your reaction to a particular immigrant group by whether you like their food, or their women. A lot of non-Europeans wouldn't make the list, but I think in general East Asians and Latinos do. IOW, if we get immigrants from those communities they will probably blend in successfully over a few generations. The others, I'm less optimistic.

One thing I really, really, really like about Michelle Obama. When she went to Saudi Arabia she had nothing on her head, not even a ribbon or barette. All women officials and official’s wives who have visited Saudi for decades all have worn head scarves in deference to Islam insanity that hair has something to do with sex.

I really like that. The even better thing she did was to aggressively stick out her hand to be shaken. That violates a major, major orthodox jew and muslim taboo. You see, a “woman is a pitcher of filth whose lower hole is filled with dried blood” the Talmud and Koran. So it is some kind of horrendous violation of purity and cleanliness for a man to touch a woman. You see, she might be menstruating or just about to menstruate or recently menstruated. Muslims don’t have that only touch your wife 14 days of the month to avoid contamination thing, but they have the same horror of accidentally touching a possibly menstruating woman on a public bus or store or sidewalk ( unless of course they are raping her in which case there is no taboo.)

Wonderful religion no? Its a sin to sit next to a woman on a bus or allow a Dr or nurse to care for you because she might be menstruating but it is some kind of mitzvah to rape a woman if she is out in public without a male body guard. Apparently the rape is to punish the woman for being outside without the body guard. Allah’s idea is that since the rape is to punish the woman it is some kind of good deed like donating to charity or saying a prayer.

Trump was not with us on this, ever. When the GOP went after him for not being a "true conservative," they were right on the cultural front, at least. Trump is in fact a normal, non-SJW liberal on most issues. How could he not be? Look where he came from. They would've drummed him out of Society long before had he been anything else; they only got around to doing so retroactively.

On three issues--immigration, trade, and foreign policy--he's heretical. (On other issues--tax cuts, abortion, etc.--I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don't hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what's important to them.) For those, and because mainstream liberalism isn't "normal" anymore, it's SJW-crazed, he's Literally Hitler. Which is good for us, because he hits the left where it hurts. But it doesn't mean we should expect him to be conservative on issues outside the Big Three.

I'm prioritizing. The judiciary omnipotent has already ruled on homomania, though clean-up operations remain (and black market cake decorators wait in the wings). World War T rages on, and will probably win, too. In the meantime, the very fate of the nation may be at stake. I'm much more concerned with where Trump stands on immigration, the economy, and war. Everything else is a luxury.

Besides, I can't match the SJW maniacs issue for issue. I'm not a zealot. I think it's better to let them go crazy, then take over the cultural high ground by force. And I mean it. We will have to storm the citadel, just like they did in the 60s and 70s.

Particular politicians, including the president, don't matter much in the Culture War, which is a multi-generational struggle. It is a political struggle, but a longterm one. We'll need the cops and judges on our side eventually, when we're fighting in the streets, but Trump can't do much about that. He wouldn't even go Jackson if SCOTUS knocked down his entire immigration policy, I presume, let alone upend the judicial oligarchy and law enforcement in general so that we can Berkeley the left instead of the other way around.

I'd like to see him go after the Cathedral, but I don't expect much. Good enough if he swings the pendulum back in the other direction. In the meantime, he fights against the New World Order in the Big Three, and maybe we have a nation whose culture we can eventually save.

There is quite a bit I could say in response to what you have written and given the opportunity, I suspect that this is a conversation we could continue for some time. For now, let me just reiterate a certain point that I have argued previously.

I believe that if nothing else then at least on transmania– at least when it comes to drastic, irreversible alteration of innocent, confused children and adolescents– there is still a solid, if not overwhelming majority of Americans who remain sane. Based on that, I would think that taking some step(s) to rein-in such extreme excesses of the “LGBTQ” Revolution could be a winning move for President Trump politically.

Bodil is a male-to-female transsexual. I went to one of her talks. It was OK, but there was a bit too much Brony meme stuff in it. A lot of transsexuals seem to be not only be 'born in the wrong the body' but also permanently stuck in a pre-pubescent fantasy mindset. One thing I remember from her talk was when one of the audience asked a slightly difficult technical question - she seemed afraid, as if she had been attacked, and glanced anxiously at the organiser for backup. It was like watching an insecure child in a school play.

And you're right about the tranny / STEM thing. At my last job we had an American manager who was always keen to employ women in technical jobs. We found one candidate who was off-the-charts in accomplishments - various awards etc. I couldn't help notice her Adam's Apple, and when I looked into her awards they were awarded to a man who looked just like her.

A lot of transsexuals seem to be not only be ‘born in the wrong the body’ but also permanently stuck in a pre-pubescent fantasy mindset.

The danger in all of this is that the SJWs, by precasting scripted rationalizations for girls, women, and minorities of both sexes regarding life and sexuality, are retarding their ability to grow up and deal with reality.

"The original view of immigrants was they only assimilate if they intermarry with current American inhabitants."

Indeed, because the Founding Fathers had elitist notions regarding "inbreeding"--the English marry the English, the Germans marry the Germans, etc. That idea went by the wayside as third and fourth generation Americans began to marry outside of their ethnic groups for reasons other than ethnicity--shared religious values, combining economic resources.

"We can see this was held up to 1924 (when troublesome ethnicities had immigration numbers restricted)- the idea you are referring to is a 1960s creation."

According to nativists there were "troublesome ethnicities". The Poles, Italians, and Greeks, for example, would beg to differ. Besides, I thought white Europeans were desirable compared to other groups of people entering our shores. What gives?

Whether or not any of the past attitudes and policies that you cite were justified would not change the manifest reality today of continued mass immigration from the third-world into the countries of the West. That reality is that the effects of such immigration are, on balance, overwhelmingly detrimental and dangerous for us. (And also, by depriving the third-world countries of so many of of their most intelligent, capable and talented citizens, detrimental to them as well.) To continue on our present path would be suicidal.

Just on the matter of “refugees” alone, I have to wonder whether you are familiar with any of the facts reported at a site such as Refugee Resettlement Watch.

What, after all, is wrong with nativism? Why is this a pejorative — even on the political left, never mind from the pen of a self-described conservative. For a government to favor its own people over foreigners: There’s something wrong with that? What? What, exactly? Because it’s “hateful”? What nonsense! I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don’t hate your kids, so long as they don’t come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them.

"Whether or not any of the past attitudes and policies that you cite were justified would not change the manifest reality today of continued mass immigration from the third-world into the countries of the West."

Those past attitudes and policies are the genesis for today's reality. The arguments used by nativists toward Eastern/Southern European immigrants are similar in nature toward non-white immigrants. Moreover, the average white American is not a protectors of the West, or Anglo-America, or however one wants to call it; they are protectors of their nation.

"That reality is that the effects of such immigration are, on balance, overwhelmingly detrimental and dangerous for us."

Who is "us"? You do realize that the Poles, the Slavs, and the Italians were deemed half-savage by nativists, not because of their skin color, but because of their ethnicity. Yet, magically, these three groups integrated.

"(And also, by depriving the third-world countries of so many of of their most intelligent, capable and talented citizens, detrimental to them as well.) To continue on our present path would be suicidal."

Not if current law is observed, or changes in the law that clearly ensure that the vetting process will be enforced, that company owners will be brought to justice for skirting immigration statutes.

"Concerning your obviously pejorative use of the term “nativists”, I would refer you to segment five of the September 23rd edition of Radio Derb, Three Cheers for Nativism!"

Nativism is the correct term here. It refers to the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

"I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don’t hate your kids, so long as they don’t come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them."

Except that there are people in that same house who did invite those kids over. In our house, the United States, Congress put forth an immigration policy, so there was an invitation extended by the consent of the governed. Speaking of Derb, he has the audacity to call those whites who do "invite" non-whites as being "bad whites" or "anti-white". Do not individual white people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding race without having other white people label them as essentially "race traitors"?

On other issues–tax cuts, abortion, etc.–I think he goes along with the conservative crowd to get along, and libs don’t hassle him about them much compared to the other stuff, which shows you what’s important to them.

Oh, the left hassles Trump plenty on abortion. Wait until the Gorsuch hearings start. I have never really understood why abortion is such a visceral issue to the left (or the right for that matter) - most of the women who march for legalized abortion are wealthy enough to have access to safe abortions even if the US did make a sudden about face back to 1970. And honestly, I don't see the US doing much to restrict abortions under any regime. That ship sailed. But really, for a significant percentage of hard-core Democrats access to legal abortion is probably the number one issue.

But really, for a significant percentage of hard-core Democrats access to legal abortion is probably the number one issue.

To be sure. Nonetheless, there would appear to be at least somewhat more tolerance on the left for individuals who merely oppose abortion than there is for individuals who oppose “LGBTQ” doctrine and agenda. Democrats or people who identify as liberal or leftist who oppose the latter (“LGBTQ”) are even more difficult to find than those of the same political identity who oppose abortion.

Whether or not any of the past attitudes and policies that you cite were justified would not change the manifest reality today of continued mass immigration from the third-world into the countries of the West. That reality is that the effects of such immigration are, on balance, overwhelmingly detrimental and dangerous for us. (And also, by depriving the third-world countries of so many of of their most intelligent, capable and talented citizens, detrimental to them as well.) To continue on our present path would be suicidal.

Just on the matter of "refugees" alone, I have to wonder whether you are familiar with any of the facts reported at a site such as Refugee Resettlement Watch.

What, after all, is wrong with nativism? Why is this a pejorative — even on the political left, never mind from the pen of a self-described conservative. For a government to favor its own people over foreigners: There's something wrong with that? What? What, exactly? Because it's "hateful"? What nonsense! I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don't hate your kids, so long as they don't come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them.

“Whether or not any of the past attitudes and policies that you cite were justified would not change the manifest reality today of continued mass immigration from the third-world into the countries of the West.”

Those past attitudes and policies are the genesis for today’s reality. The arguments used by nativists toward Eastern/Southern European immigrants are similar in nature toward non-white immigrants. Moreover, the average white American is not a protectors of the West, or Anglo-America, or however one wants to call it; they are protectors of their nation.

“That reality is that the effects of such immigration are, on balance, overwhelmingly detrimental and dangerous for us.”

Who is “us”? You do realize that the Poles, the Slavs, and the Italians were deemed half-savage by nativists, not because of their skin color, but because of their ethnicity. Yet, magically, these three groups integrated.

“(And also, by depriving the third-world countries of so many of of their most intelligent, capable and talented citizens, detrimental to them as well.) To continue on our present path would be suicidal.”

Not if current law is observed, or changes in the law that clearly ensure that the vetting process will be enforced, that company owners will be brought to justice for skirting immigration statutes.

“Concerning your obviously pejorative use of the term “nativists”, I would refer you to segment five of the September 23rd edition of Radio Derb, Three Cheers for Nativism!”

Nativism is the correct term here. It refers to the policy of protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

“I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don’t hate your kids, so long as they don’t come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them.”

Except that there are people in that same house who did invite those kids over. In our house, the United States, Congress put forth an immigration policy, so there was an invitation extended by the consent of the governed. Speaking of Derb, he has the audacity to call those whites who do “invite” non-whites as being “bad whites” or “anti-white”. Do not individual white people have the liberty to make their own decisions regarding race without having other white people label them as essentially “race traitors”?